The EU as originally conceived was not a bad idea. It was when power crazed unelected bureaucrats sought more and more control and enlarged without reason and admitted near bankrupt countries that it all started to unravel.
It is each and every member state of the EU, not the bureaucrats, that have chosen to do more at EU level. The bureaucrats have no choice in the matter whatsoever.
A typical Telegraph article that selectively picks data to "create the news".
A consistent feature of all such opinion polls is that citizens of the various member states (including the UK) consistently rate their own domestic governments and parliaments as being less trustworthy that the EU's, usually by a large margin of 6% or so. A fact that the Telegraph, of course, omits.
Yet I doubt anyone here would produce dross like "The United Kingdom dream is dying" other than, perhaps, a really deranged SNP or Plaid Cymru supporter... :-)
Yet I doubt anyone here would produce dross like "The United Kingdom dream is dying" other than, perhaps, a really deranged SNP or Plaid Cymru supporter... :-)
United Kingdom dream ended when British Empire collapsed
The last one had 51% of Tory members voting to stay in, with 43% voting to pull out.
Given most of the recent polls on EU exit have been effective ties I very much doubt that. That would imply Tories are more pro EU than Labour or LD voters which is rather unlikely!
The Government we elect in may will be a devolved government of the European parliament with Germany at its head.
There is more countries than Britain unhappy with the EU and the way its being run.
It seems when countries bring in suggestions for change if Germany says no than its no.
I personally would like to go back to the EEC which seemed easier for all countries and could not interfere in their laws and regulations as the EU courts do now.
Sadly Germany has done what it could not do in 2 wars and got control of Europe.
The EU is so inflexible. Why can it be more modular and work for it's members? If Britain has a big issue with borders due to it being an island etc. why can't the EU accommodate that?
Member states should be able to opt in and out of EU law on election cycles. The whole point of having a union is it should benefit not constrain the countries that are part of it.
Government, in general, is so inflexible. That is not a trait limited to the EU. All government is slow, bureaucratic and staggeringly inflexible. Nothing will change in this regard by leaving the EU.
Apart in the UK of course where Ipso Mori showed that continued support for EU membership was 56% and rising - and had been rising for a decade largely because of young people, opposition to the EU being strongest amongst the over 65 and therefore subject to natural attrition.
Apart in the UK of course where Ipso Mori showed that continued support for EU membership was 56% and rising - and had been rising for a decade largely because of young people, opposition to the EU being strongest amongst the over 65 and therefore subject to natural attrition.
makes you wonder why the pro Europeans are so desperate to avoid a referendum doesn't it? ;-)
How many waste of money Scotland style referendums does the country need?
So the only reason for not having a referendum is on cost grounds?
As for big business wanting to remain in the EU well no shit sherlock - what company would ever want to stop the downward pressure on wages. Big business has been pro the EU from day 1 - they even issued dire warnings of the economic collapse we would suffer if we didn't join the Euro...
So the only reason for not having a referendum is on cost grounds?
As for big business wanting to remain in the EU well no shit sherlock - what company would ever want to stop the downward pressure on wages. Big business has been pro the EU from day 1 - they even issued dire warnings of the economic collapse we would suffer if we didn't join the Euro...
No it's on complete waste of time grounds actually.
There would need to be a double majority in each of the home nations as Nicole Sturgeon said this weekend, because it affects the whole of the UK not just Clacton, Wales and Scotland and NI would vote against so we are done. If we acceded to every crackpot right wing demand when does it end.
No it's on complete waste of time grounds actually.
There would need to be a double majority in each of the home nations as Nicole Sturgeon said this weekend, because it affects the whole of the UK not just Clacton, Wales and Scotland and NI would vote against so we are done. If we acceded to every crackpot right wing demand when does it end.
Eh? - there is only one member of the EU and that is the UK - therefore there only needs to be a single referendum covering the entire UK. The votes of people living in Scotland or wales are no more valuable than anyone else's.
Any more bizarre reasons not to ask the people what they want?
Eh? - there is only one member of the EU and that is the UK - therefore there only needs to be a single referendum covering the entire UK. The votes of people living in Scotland or wales are no more valuable than anyone else's.
Any more bizarre reasons not to ask the people what they want?
What's the point of devolution or having home nations then if England decides the future of the UK all on its own?
In any case the sole anti EU party in England , sorry, the UK of any significance is UKIP and it is busy alienating as many people as it can , stagnating at 17% or whatever, so if that was a uk wide attempt at federating the anti EU vote then a) it is still in minority even in its supposed heartland b) it is failing to convince even Thanet South apparently. Can we get back to the future now please?
The only 'bizarre' question I would want answered is what happens to the UK post-referendum in the event of an 'out' vote.
If the next step is full membership of EFTA (a la Norway) I am more or less ready to vote 'out' myself. It will kill off the cancer that is crippling UK politics (that being the constant arguing over a single subject to the detriment of everything else), and will deprive UKIP (and by extension, the anti-immigrant bigots that are hanging on their coat-tails) of both a reason for being and a steady stream of income. It'll allow the country to have a more healthy relationship with the EU whilst still providing full access to the single market.
If it's full divorce, I will vote 'in'. Far too risky otherwise IMO.
England wouldn't be - the citizens of the UK (the member country) would.
that is if you trust the people enough to allow them a say.
So how about respecting devolution agreements within the UK itself and as a compromise requesting a majority in each home nation.since the UK is supposedly a sum of 4 equal parts.
So how about respecting devolution agreements within the UK itself and as a compromise requesting a majority in each home nation.since the UK is supposedly a sum of 4 equal parts.
Again one can't have it both ways.
Why would you need a majority in each home nation, when there is only one EU member - the Home Nations are simply administrative districts of that member State.
Perhaps we should only go ahead if we can get a majority in every local council?
Why would you need a majority in each home nation, when there is only one EU member - the Home Nations are simply administrative districts of that member State.
Perhaps we should only go ahead if we can get a majority in every local council?
If it was done on a constituency basis, we'd be out of the EU the following day. With rare exceptions, constituencies adversely affected by migration and immigration, would far outweigh those who would be in favour. Perhaps in May, we could vote for our MP at the same time as an in/out vote on the EU, then no one would have to vote for that nasty UKIP.:D
Why would you need a majority in each home nation, when there is only one EU member - the Home Nations are simply administrative districts of that member State.
Perhaps we should only go ahead if we can get a majority in every local council?
Because devolution means the Parliament of the UK has granted statutory powers to the parliaments of Scotland, and the assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland (and greater london too in fact), not to the local councils, and moreover in the case of Scotland or Northern Ireland and soon Wales the devolution of powers for elections is exclusive, meaning they decide what elections entail. So if they decide Scotland needs its own majority to leave the EU then that's that and there is nowt England or the rest of the UK combined can do about it. Devolution means devolution, Westminster cannot suddenly roll it all back when it feels like it.
Because devolution means the Parliament of the UK has granted statutory powers to the parliaments of Scotland, and the assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland (and greater london too in fact), not to the local councils, and moreover in the case of Scotland or Northern Ireland and soon Wales the devolution of powers for elections is exclusive, meaning they decide what elections entail. So if they decide Scotland needs its own majority to leave the EU then that's that and there is nowt England or the rest of the UK combined can do about it. Devolution means devolution, Westminster cannot suddenly roll it all back when it feels like it.
Is devolving elections the same as devolving national referenda? I ask because as far as I know, Scotland cannot determine its own position with regard to the EU, the UN, NATO or any other international organisation to which the UK have signed up.
Is devolving elections the same as devolving national referenda? I ask because as far as I know, Scotland cannot determine its own position with regard to the EU, the UN, NATO or any other international organisation to which the UK have signed up.
Scotland has no competence in foreign policy. That was not devolved.
Comments
It is each and every member state of the EU, not the bureaucrats, that have chosen to do more at EU level. The bureaucrats have no choice in the matter whatsoever.
A typical Telegraph article that selectively picks data to "create the news".
A consistent feature of all such opinion polls is that citizens of the various member states (including the UK) consistently rate their own domestic governments and parliaments as being less trustworthy that the EU's, usually by a large margin of 6% or so. A fact that the Telegraph, of course, omits.
Yet I doubt anyone here would produce dross like "The United Kingdom dream is dying" other than, perhaps, a really deranged SNP or Plaid Cymru supporter... :-)
Nonsense. We atill have the Falklands
Given most of the recent polls on EU exit have been effective ties I very much doubt that. That would imply Tories are more pro EU than Labour or LD voters which is rather unlikely!
Sadly Germany has done what it could not do in 2 wars and got control of Europe.
Government, in general, is so inflexible. That is not a trait limited to the EU. All government is slow, bureaucratic and staggeringly inflexible. Nothing will change in this regard by leaving the EU.
makes you wonder why the pro Europeans are so desperate to avoid a referendum doesn't it? ;-)
when it comes down to facing the abyss the pub talk stops and hard reality sets in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/11367264/Goldman-Sachs-boss-imperative-that-UK-stays-in-EU.html
How many waste of money Scotland style referendums does the country need?
Exactly, let's settle this. The British people have never had a say on our membership of the EU as it exists today.
Let each side in the debate put it's argument to the people and have a referendum.
Any party that values and respects democracy shouldn't be afraid of trusting in and abiding by the decision of the people they claim to represent.
So the only reason for not having a referendum is on cost grounds?
As for big business wanting to remain in the EU well no shit sherlock - what company would ever want to stop the downward pressure on wages. Big business has been pro the EU from day 1 - they even issued dire warnings of the economic collapse we would suffer if we didn't join the Euro...
No it's on complete waste of time grounds actually.
There would need to be a double majority in each of the home nations as Nicole Sturgeon said this weekend, because it affects the whole of the UK not just Clacton, Wales and Scotland and NI would vote against so we are done. If we acceded to every crackpot right wing demand when does it end.
Eh? - there is only one member of the EU and that is the UK - therefore there only needs to be a single referendum covering the entire UK. The votes of people living in Scotland or wales are no more valuable than anyone else's.
Any more bizarre reasons not to ask the people what they want?
What's the point of devolution or having home nations then if England decides the future of the UK all on its own?
In any case the sole anti EU party in England , sorry, the UK of any significance is UKIP and it is busy alienating as many people as it can , stagnating at 17% or whatever, so if that was a uk wide attempt at federating the anti EU vote then a) it is still in minority even in its supposed heartland b) it is failing to convince even Thanet South apparently. Can we get back to the future now please?
If the next step is full membership of EFTA (a la Norway) I am more or less ready to vote 'out' myself. It will kill off the cancer that is crippling UK politics (that being the constant arguing over a single subject to the detriment of everything else), and will deprive UKIP (and by extension, the anti-immigrant bigots that are hanging on their coat-tails) of both a reason for being and a steady stream of income. It'll allow the country to have a more healthy relationship with the EU whilst still providing full access to the single market.
If it's full divorce, I will vote 'in'. Far too risky otherwise IMO.
England wouldn't be - the citizens of the UK (the member country) would.
that is if you trust the people enough to allow them a say.
So how about respecting devolution agreements within the UK itself and as a compromise requesting a majority in each home nation.since the UK is supposedly a sum of 4 equal parts.
Again one can't have it both ways.
Why would you need a majority in each home nation, when there is only one EU member - the Home Nations are simply administrative districts of that member State.
Perhaps we should only go ahead if we can get a majority in every local council?
If it was done on a constituency basis, we'd be out of the EU the following day. With rare exceptions, constituencies adversely affected by migration and immigration, would far outweigh those who would be in favour. Perhaps in May, we could vote for our MP at the same time as an in/out vote on the EU, then no one would have to vote for that nasty UKIP.:D
Because devolution means the Parliament of the UK has granted statutory powers to the parliaments of Scotland, and the assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland (and greater london too in fact), not to the local councils, and moreover in the case of Scotland or Northern Ireland and soon Wales the devolution of powers for elections is exclusive, meaning they decide what elections entail. So if they decide Scotland needs its own majority to leave the EU then that's that and there is nowt England or the rest of the UK combined can do about it. Devolution means devolution, Westminster cannot suddenly roll it all back when it feels like it.
Is devolving elections the same as devolving national referenda? I ask because as far as I know, Scotland cannot determine its own position with regard to the EU, the UN, NATO or any other international organisation to which the UK have signed up.
Scotland has no competence in foreign policy. That was not devolved.
So the neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Scottish people can decide the question of the EU, would that be right?