In or out of he eu referendum

[carryfast]

muckles:

Carryfast:
If you don’t have ‘unanimous’,locally agreed,democratic consent on every issue, without the ability to opt out of/change/VETO any decision,you don’t have a consenting group of ‘like minded individuals’.America has been here before in the corruption of its original Confederate Constitution and the result being what happened in 1861 and don’t give me the slavery bollox.

you have many groups where the members have a common aim, but disagree on the details, if there is a right of veto on every decision the group will probably never move forward to achieve it’s main aim. If a member of that group finds it can’t accept the conditions agreed by the majority then they really have to leave the group or the group will cease to be a group.
(Could really be an argument for the UK leaving the EU, we really don’t agree with the aims of the group and we don’t want to be bound by the decisions of the group, but we can’t remain in the group and just keep vetoing anything that doesn’t suit us, as that would mean neither the UK or the EU can progress)

And you will never get a group of people who totally agree with each other on every detail, even if they are like minded and want to achieve a common goal. so you’d have no chance of a group of nations agreeing on every detail.

And my understanding of Democratic consent isn’t a unanimous agreement but all members having an equal vote, but agreeing to accept decision of the majority.

Firstly I didn’t say only VETO I also said the sovereign right of ‘opt out’ and ‘substitution’.It seems obvious that VETO would seldom if ever be needed given the other two options.Democracy in this case still meaning limited to the nation state bearing in mind we have no democratic control over the other members of the group.As I said this is exactly the same discussion which took place when the American Constitution was changed from a Confederation of Sovereign States to a Federal Union.Thereby condemning every casualty of the War of Secession that resulted from that fateful decision almost 100 years later.

You can then add to that the casualties resulting from the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

So put yourself in the position of those American leaders or Tito etc would you still make the same decision knowing the eventual results ?.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
As I said pre EEC Ireland would fit the definition.

As for ‘falling to communism’ the breakup of the former Yugoslavia would be an example of Nationalism actually ‘defeating’ Socialism/Communism.Which make no mistake is where the Stasi Merkel led EU Federation is ultimately also heading unless it can be peacefully smashed now.

I beg to differ. I don’t think PRE EEC Ireland would fit that definition at all. They were defiantly falling from capitalism. Victorian levels of poverty rife in small towns and villages anywhere outside of Dublin. Something had to change, that’s one of the very reasons cited why the poor sorry buggers thought they’d found it in the EU.

Blimey if poverty is going to be the definition of falling from Capitalism that would make America and us falling from Capitalism at some point.While Ireland wasn’t exactly a rich bed of roses to live in under UK Federation rule with no democratic power to improve their situation.Which is why numerous Irish people gave their lives for the Irish ‘Nationalist’ cause and the Independent Ireland which resulted from it.

Which then leaves the other example of the breakup of Yugoslavia being a Nationalist War of Secession and victory over Socialism/Communism/Federalism and inter ethnic score settling.Which is probably as good an example as any of the future of the EU if it isn’t stopped now.

[muckles]

Carryfast:

muckles:

Carryfast:
If you don’t have ‘unanimous’,locally agreed,democratic consent on every issue, without the ability to opt out of/change/VETO any decision,you don’t have a consenting group of ‘like minded individuals’.America has been here before in the corruption of its original Confederate Constitution and the result being what happened in 1861 and don’t give me the slavery bollox.

you have many groups where the members have a common aim, but disagree on the details, if there is a right of veto on every decision the group will probably never move forward to achieve it’s main aim. If a member of that group finds it can’t accept the conditions agreed by the majority then they really have to leave the group or the group will cease to be a group.
(Could really be an argument for the UK leaving the EU, we really don’t agree with the aims of the group and we don’t want to be bound by the decisions of the group, but we can’t remain in the group and just keep vetoing anything that doesn’t suit us, as that would mean neither the UK or the EU can progress)

And you will never get a group of people who totally agree with each other on every detail, even if they are like minded and want to achieve a common goal. so you’d have no chance of a group of nations agreeing on every detail.

And my understanding of Democratic consent isn’t a unanimous agreement but all members having an equal vote, but agreeing to accept decision of the majority.

Firstly I didn’t say only VETO I also said the sovereign right of ‘opt out’ and ‘substitution’.It seems obvious that VETO would seldom if ever be needed given the other two options.Democracy in this case still meaning limited to the nation state bearing in mind we have no democratic control over the other members of the group.As I said this is exactly the same discussion which took place when the American Constitution was changed from a Confederation of Sovereign States to a Federal Union.Thereby condemning every casualty of the War of Secession that resulted from that fateful decision almost 100 years later.

You can then add to that the casualties resulting from the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

So put yourself in the position of those American leaders or Tito etc would you still make the same decision knowing the eventual results ?.

Veto, opt out, substitution, what difference does it make, if you can’t work as a group to achieve the main aim of the group then the group doesn’t function.

I was never talking about political union, I was talking about individuals working together towards a common aim. Of course if you don’t allow those individuals to leave the group when they no longer want to remain you will get conflict.

[carryfast]

muckles:
Veto, opt out, substitution, what difference does it make, if you can’t work as a group to achieve the main aim of the group then the group doesn’t function.

I was never talking about political union, I was talking about individuals working together towards a common aim. Of course if you don’t allow those individuals to leave the group when they no longer want to remain you will get conflict.

It makes a lot of difference in the case of your argument that a Sovereign Conditional arrangement supposedly stops the group as a whole doing anything it wants to do.So the majority want something that the minority doesn’t.If the minority opts out or does something different how does that supposedly affect the rest ?.

The Federal system contained in the Treaties of Rome/Maastricht/Lisbon already form a ‘political union’.Which is what the argument concerning sovereignty is all about.None of our obligations under those treaties having been changed by signed amendment that returns full sovereignty.While the idea of ‘individuals’ working ‘towards’ a ‘common aim’ would obviously fit the definition of a Confederal Europe as I’m describing rather than the Federal one contained in the treaties.While history shows that Federations usually/always eventually end up with the situation of secession being met by force to maintain ‘the Union’/Federation.

IE if you want to protect future generations of Brits from the potential/probable situation of facing a European Federal Force,enforcing the continuation of ‘the Union’,over non existent ‘individual’ State rights,then give them the Constitution they’ll need to stop that situation and if not get the hell out it,now,while we can.

[bking]

Yes the European Union is corrupt and what we really need is to have our own corrupt bunch of tory scum bags making the rules.You know the ones who really care about the rights of the working man.The ones who penalise the disabled and impose higher taxation on the poorest in our society while allowing the likes of Amazon and Google to pay less than 1% corporation tax revenues then tell us “plebs” what a good deal they got for us.

Dont matter if we are in or out the EU we will be just be swapping one bunch of blood sucking self important scum for another bunch of public school “educated” parasites.
Europe and this country is a basket case.

The US and NATO have achieved what they set out to do when they started with Iraq.To destabilise Americas biggest threat to global dominance eg the European union.

They keep telling us that the wars in Iraq,Libya,Syria,Somalia “failed”
They went exactly as planned,they destabilised the middle east and set in motion a wave of chaos that is now spreading into Turkey.Turkey is now descending into civil war.
Turkey has “agreed” to close its western border eg Bulgaria to “migrants” from the middle east in exchange for 2.5 billion euros and access to the "sangen " treaty.
In other words we have swapped 2,5 billion euros and 4 million refugees kept out of the EU for 75 million Turks with free access to all parts of the European Union.
Now if 75 million Turks dont destabilise Europe I dont know what the hell will.

All part the game plan to impose a new world order.

[tris]

I will be voting leave. If Cameron had put a stop to the free movement of people from Eastern Europe who are pushing my wages down, and lowering my standard of living, I’d vote to stay in.

[carryfast-yeti]

i will be voting to leave.this will be the only chance we get of escaping the tidal wave of immigration coming this way.

[eddie_snax]

Carryfast:

eddie snax:
I’ll ignore your last facile comment.

ONSUK trade with EU and non-EU countries 2014
Goods and services
---------------- Exports ------- Imports -------- Balance
--------------- £ billion----% —£ billion----%----- £ billion
-----EU ---------230-----45%------289---- 53%---- --59
Non-EU --------283-----55%------259-----47%----- +24
—Total --------513----100%-----548----100%---- -34
Source:ONS Balance of Payments Statistical Bulletin

That’s a basic table of the trade for 2014, and yes I know that there is a defecit with the EU, but there is still an Export trade to the value of £230 billion, so were does that trade get made up from, and further in this report, it shows that is a manufactured goods defecit, and that services were in credit.

The EU as a bloc is by far the UK’s largest trading partner. Exports to the US were £88.0 billion and exports to China £18.7 billion in 2014.2 The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU fell from 55% in 2002 to 45% in 2014. The EU accounted for 58% of UK imports in 2002. This fell to 51% in 2011 but increased again to 53% in 2014.

This paragraph shows that the US and China, our next 2 largest trading partners I assume, only accounted for £106.7billion.
So where do we make all these extra exports too, once the EU has been jettisoned.

Blimey I thought I was dealing an intellectual

We should only be interested in our domestic market, the once great mercantile trading nation of Great Britain should shut the door and pass ever dwindling pot of beans between each other. Grow Up

You’re still obviously unable to grasp the idea that a trading relationship which puts us in trade deficit ain’t worth keeping anyway.Especially when that deficit is mostly made up of what we can produce for ourselves and especially when it costs us the additional amount of our net EU contributions in addition for the privilege.As for how do we make up for any so called potential loss of EU export markets ( based on what evidence exactly ) we can obviously make up for it out of the much higher 289 billion figure that they export to us.Assuming they really want a trade war just because we’ve told Merkel to do one and shove her EU treaties and rules.On that note does the 230 billion EU exports figure include oil and gas exports ?.In which case assuming it does that just means more depletion of our natural resources for the privilege of buying German goods that we could make for ourselves.Nothing new there.

As for concentrating on the domestic market,in the realisation that most of the rest of the world is now a financial liability,in regards to trade,in the saturated under cut markets of the 21st century,in which the Fordist economic system is now just a memory in favour of third world and Communist exploited cheap labour.Go tell British Steel Workers how good EU membership is.Let alone the ‘benefits’ of global free trade in that environment.

So yet more evidence.The IN campaign for people who don’t understand basic maths.

So We cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, sack all the bods who are trading goods or services with the EU, and put them to work building the Austin Allegro’s again, (for the benefit of the people, who will be pleased, and enjoy their new found taste, for being broken down on the hardshoulder), where exactly in the Britain do we find the Iron ore, for our grateful steel workers to turn into sheet steel. Where in Britian will we find enough Oil to refine into petrol to fuel the mighty Allegro or will that be on rationing, I suspect you’d endorse that. Close the Airports to foreign carriers, whom in turn will have our carriers banned from their countries. I suppose we’d have to close all the sea ports too, just thinking about the amount of foreign capital that’s been spent at Felixstowe and London Gateway over the last 7-8 years, many jobs to be lost there.

Because as soon as you state that BS about “concentrating on the domestic market in the realisation that most of the rest of the world is now a financial liability”, you lose the ability to source foreign capital, which regardless of what you think, does actually exist. Luckily for the majority of right thinking people in the UK whether for IN or OUT, the serious OUT campaigner understand this, they understand that trade is a two way street. Even North Korea needs and has access to foreign capital mainly from the Chinese, in the form of direct capital, or goods moving across the border. But in your world Britian will do just fine on its own.

We are a global country, how we relate to the rest of the globe is what’s at stake, I wish to continue to relate to the rest of the world from within the EU, I accept that others see it different,

[tris]

eddie snax:

Carryfast:

eddie snax:
I’ll ignore your last facile comment.

ONSUK trade with EU and non-EU countries 2014
Goods and services
---------------- Exports ------- Imports -------- Balance
--------------- £ billion----% —£ billion----%----- £ billion
-----EU ---------230-----45%------289---- 53%---- --59
Non-EU --------283-----55%------259-----47%----- +24
—Total --------513----100%-----548----100%---- -34
Source:ONS Balance of Payments Statistical Bulletin

That’s a basic table of the trade for 2014, and yes I know that there is a defecit with the EU, but there is still an Export trade to the value of £230 billion, so were does that trade get made up from, and further in this report, it shows that is a manufactured goods defecit, and that services were in credit.

The EU as a bloc is by far the UK’s largest trading partner. Exports to the US were £88.0 billion and exports to China £18.7 billion in 2014.2 The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU fell from 55% in 2002 to 45% in 2014. The EU accounted for 58% of UK imports in 2002. This fell to 51% in 2011 but increased again to 53% in 2014.

This paragraph shows that the US and China, our next 2 largest trading partners I assume, only accounted for £106.7billion.
So where do we make all these extra exports too, once the EU has been jettisoned.

Blimey I thought I was dealing an intellectual

We should only be interested in our domestic market, the once great mercantile trading nation of Great Britain should shut the door and pass ever dwindling pot of beans between each other. Grow Up

You’re still obviously unable to grasp the idea that a trading relationship which puts us in trade deficit ain’t worth keeping anyway.Especially when that deficit is mostly made up of what we can produce for ourselves and especially when it costs us the additional amount of our net EU contributions in addition for the privilege.As for how do we make up for any so called potential loss of EU export markets ( based on what evidence exactly ) we can obviously make up for it out of the much higher 289 billion figure that they export to us.Assuming they really want a trade war just because we’ve told Merkel to do one and shove her EU treaties and rules.On that note does the 230 billion EU exports figure include oil and gas exports ?.In which case assuming it does that just means more depletion of our natural resources for the privilege of buying German goods that we could make for ourselves.Nothing new there.

As for concentrating on the domestic market,in the realisation that most of the rest of the world is now a financial liability,in regards to trade,in the saturated under cut markets of the 21st century,in which the Fordist economic system is now just a memory in favour of third world and Communist exploited cheap labour.Go tell British Steel Workers how good EU membership is.Let alone the ‘benefits’ of global free trade in that environment.

So yet more evidence.The IN campaign for people who don’t understand basic maths.

So We cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, sack all the bods who are trading goods or services with the EU, and put them to work building the Austin Allegro’s again, (for the benefit of the people, who will be pleased, and enjoy their new found taste, for being broken down on the hardshoulder), where exactly in the Britain do we find the Iron ore, for our grateful steel workers to turn into sheet steel. Where in Britian will we find enough Oil to refine into petrol to fuel the mighty Allegro or will that be on rationing, I suspect you’d endorse that. Close the Airports to foreign carriers, whom in turn will have our carriers banned from their countries. I suppose we’d have to close all the sea ports too, just thinking about the amount of foreign capital that’s been spent at Felixstowe and London Gateway over the last 7-8 years, many jobs to be lost there.

Because as soon as you state that BS about “concentrating on the domestic market in the realisation that most of the rest of the world is now a financial liability”, you lose the ability to source foreign capital, which regardless of what you think, does actually exist. Luckily for the majority of right thinking people in the UK whether for IN or OUT, the serious OUT campaigner understand this, they understand that trade is a two way street. Even North Korea needs and has access to foreign capital mainly from the Chinese, in the form of direct capital, or goods moving across the border. But in your world Britian will do just fine on its own.

We are a global country, how we relate to the rest of the globe is what’s at stake, I wish to continue to relate to the rest of the world from within the EU, I accept that others see it different,

“We” are a boss, living the good life on cheap labour, are “we”?

I dare say you will get your way and we will remain in. Project fear usually works with the peasants.

[eddie_snax]

Tris:
“We” are a boss, living the good life on cheap labour, are “we”?

.

not sure what you mean

Tris:
I dare say you will get your way and we will remain in. Project fear usually works with the peasants.

I love the way that, if its for evolution, then its project fear. Where if its for revolution then its some holy project

[tris]

eddie snax:

Tris:
“We” are a boss, living the good life on cheap labour, are “we”?

.

not sure what you mean

Tris:
I dare say you will get your way and we will remain in. Project fear usually works with the peasants.

I love the way that, if its for evolution, then its project fear. Where if its for revolution then its some holy project

I would hardly call having a trading relationship revolutionary.

[the-snowman]

eddie snax:

Tris:
I dare say you will get your way and we will remain in. Project fear usually works with the peasants.

I love the way that, if its for evolution, then its project fear. Where if its for revolution then its some holy project

I love the way that anyone for in just says so and gives reasons but anyone for out feels the need to insult everyone who has the audacity to think differently

[evil8beezle]

The-Snowman:
I love the way that anyone for in just says so and gives reasons but anyone for out feels the need to insult everyone who has the audacity to think differently

Well I’m for leaving, but as I’ve not been keeping up with the thread, who do I need to insult?

[dolph]

muckles:

Carryfast:
If you don’t have ‘unanimous’,locally agreed,democratic consent on every issue, without the ability to opt out of/change/VETO any decision,you don’t have a consenting group of ‘like minded individuals’.America has been here before in the corruption of its original Confederate Constitution and the result being what happened in 1861 and don’t give me the slavery bollox.

you have many groups where the members have a common aim, but disagree on the details, if there is a right of veto on every decision the group will probably never move forward to achieve it’s main aim. If a member of that group finds it can’t accept the conditions agreed by the majority then they really have to leave the group or the group will cease to be a group.
(Could really be an argument for the UK leaving the EU, we really don’t agree with the aims of the group and we don’t want to be bound by the decisions of the group, but we can’t remain in the group and just keep vetoing anything that doesn’t suit us, as that would mean neither the UK or the EU can progress)

And you will never get a group of people who totally agree with each other on every detail, even if they are like minded and want to achieve a common goal. so you’d have no chance of a group of nations agreeing on every detail.

And my understanding of Democratic consent isn’t a unanimous agreement but all members having an equal vote, but agreeing to accept decision of the majority.

That’s exactly what continental EU countries see in UK, this happen with the euro, with schengen or with selling arms to Saudi Arabia if you want. UK has been seen a selfish EU member, who don’t care about the common policies. Just lately we saw Cameron idea to change fundamental EU principles because UK doesn’t like then, when the “easier” way and I shell say the more dignify is to leave the club if you don’t like it.

[mazzer]

Agree with you Dolph in that if we don’t like it we should leave as do the majority on here. With your 3 examples the first the euro not exactly been a resounding success and when Bulgaria is forced to join if you cannot negotiate a good exchange rate on joining then you will be in a similar situation to the southern European countries with your competitiveness affected. Schengen probably was ok until ISIS and the current refugee crisis. France and Germany also sell arms to undesirable regimes and it wasn’t that long that France blew up a Greenpeace ship in it’s national interests don’t think that was EU policy

[carryfast]

eddie snax:
So We cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, sack all the bods who are trading goods or services with the EU, and put them to work building the Austin Allegro’s again, (for the benefit of the people, who will be pleased, and enjoy their new found taste, for being broken down on the hardshoulder), where exactly in the Britain do we find the Iron ore, for our grateful steel workers to turn into sheet steel. Where in Britian will we find enough Oil to refine into petrol to fuel the mighty Allegro or will that be on rationing, I suspect you’d endorse that. Close the Airports to foreign carriers, whom in turn will have our carriers banned from their countries. I suppose we’d have to close all the sea ports too, just thinking about the amount of foreign capital that’s been spent at Felixstowe and London Gateway over the last 7-8 years, many jobs to be lost there.

Because as soon as you state that BS about “concentrating on the domestic market in the realisation that most of the rest of the world is now a financial liability”, you lose the ability to source foreign capital, which regardless of what you think, does actually exist. Luckily for the majority of right thinking people in the UK whether for IN or OUT, the serious OUT campaigner understand this, they understand that trade is a two way street. Even North Korea needs and has access to foreign capital mainly from the Chinese, in the form of direct capital, or goods moving across the border. But in your world Britian will do just fine on its own.

We are a global country, how we relate to the rest of the globe is what’s at stake, I wish to continue to relate to the rest of the world from within the EU, I accept that others see it different,

No.What we do is provide ourselves with the freedom to enforce trade ‘balance’ with freeloading zb’s like ze Germans and stop under cutting of the domestic workforce by cheap exploited East Euro and Chinese labour.The resulting revolution in employment levels and wages in the domestic economy allowing workers to buy Jaguars and by your analogy Rovers and Triumphs instead of zb Allegros.

[carryfast]

Dolph:
That’s exactly what continental EU countries see in UK, this happen with the euro, with schengen or with selling arms to Saudi Arabia if you want. UK has been seen a selfish EU member, who don’t care about the common policies. Just lately we saw Cameron idea to change fundamental EU principles because UK doesn’t like then, when the “easier” way and I shell say the more dignify is to leave the club if you don’t like it.

Bearing in mind the total inability of the in campaign to understand the difference and benefits of a Confederate States of Europe as opposed to Merkel’s USE.Yes we need to get out and get out fast.

[carryfast]

Tris:
“We” are a boss, living the good life on cheap labour, are “we”?

I dare say you will get your way and we will remain in. Project fear usually works with the peasants.

That post actually contains the key to us getting out.In that the result will be decided on how many Labour voters decide to follow Hoey and Benn and Shore and Heffer before her or zb Blair and Corbyn.Hopefully for the sake of the country’s future there’s more out there who’ll follow Hoey and those on the out campaign side before her,than Blair and Corbyn.

[carryfast]

The-Snowman:
I love the way that anyone for in just says so and gives reasons but anyone for out feels the need to insult everyone who has the audacity to think differently

Yeah right the In campaign who’s lack of understanding of basic maths and the idea of democracy and sovereignty is only exceeded by their hypocrisy.

telegraph.co.uk/news/politic … loons.html

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Tris:
“We” are a boss, living the good life on cheap labour, are “we”?

I dare say you will get your way and we will remain in. Project fear usually works with the peasants.

That post actually contains the key to us getting out.In that the result will be decided on how many Labour voters decide to follow Hoey and Benn and Shore and Heffer before her or zb Blair and Corbyn.Hopefully for the sake of the country’s future there’s more out there who’ll follow Hoey than Blair and Corbyn.

Among Conservative voters, those currently looking to the EU for some kind of hand-out - are the ones in favour of staying in. Professor Stephen Hawking spoke the other day to say that in his mind, Brexit would be disaster for the Science community - as their EU funding would be cut off.

I’ve already entered the argument into the fray that "Since the EU are handing back some of what the UK gives them as a “science funding” - providing the OUT campaign assures the Science community that this full amount will be replaced with direct UK funding after Brexit - no harm will ever be done.

Thing is, we could easily do this - and have change from the amount we’ve no longer giving to Brussels.

Say the words…

I’m disappointed that the Science community fears “upheaval” though. I suppose it’s the nature of the science community to have “feet of clay” even with arguments among their own number. Anyone coming up with something new (as those making a bid for a doctorate must!) - have to get past the cynicism of the standing community first.