Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Brexit Referendum Poll - In Or Out?


warpig
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I spent a whole evening reading about this a couple of weeks ago, but I don't have time to gather up all the info I read that night. Essentially it centres around the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 50 and how decisions are passed after 31st March 2017. There's some information here, but you'll have to do some background reading to form a fuller picture. The crux of my comment, was it won't be as easy to leave after 31st March next year.

However, until March 31, 2017, a Member State may require that decisions to be made by a qualified majority in the Council are made according to the current definition of a qualified majority, meaning that the new voting system will not definitively come into effect until April 1, 2017.[10] As an added minority protection, the Member States have agreed that if a minority in the Council, constituting not less than three-fourths of the share of the population or three-fourths of the number of Member States required to constitute a blocking minority, indicates its opposition to the adoption of a document, the Council must do its utmost to find a solution satisfactory to the minority.[11] After April 1, 2017, the threshold will be lowered to 55%. The need for a transitional period suggests that the shift towards a default rule on qualified majority and a lower Member State threshold has substantial and controversial consequences for the weight of individual Member States’ influence in the framework of the European Union.

These changes mean that Members States may find their interests overruled by other Member State more frequently than they had before. A principle of unanimity ensures that each and every Member State has the right to veto. There is no doubt that a decision-making process involving so many Member States with such different goals, cultures, and history will make it likely that one or more of the Member States would eventually fear that its sovereignty would be compromised. It should be noted that the loss of state sovereignty applies equally to new and old Member States.

III. The withdrawal procedure

In this context, it is interesting that the Lisbon Treaty has also established a detailed procedure for withdrawing from the European Union. It has always been possible to withdraw from the Union, but so far it is only Greenland that has done so. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and is part of the Danish national community. When Denmark joined the European Community in 1973, the EEC Treaty and the Euro Nuclear Treaty also became applicable to Greenland, although Protocol No. 4 to the Accession Treaty contained certain specific provisions for Greenland. After a referendum, Greenland left the European Community through a Treaty dated March 13, 1984,[12] which came into force on February 1, 1985. Instead, Greenland obtained OCT status under the EEC Treaty.[13] These changes came into force by virtue of a short and single Article, Article 3, of a Treaty Amending the Treaties Establishing the European Communities with Regard to Greenland.[14]

The Treaty of Lisbon has now introduced Article 50(1) into the TEU, which includes the following provision: “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” This provision establishes a procedure to be followed if a Member State wishes to withdraw. If a Member State decides to withdraw, it must notify the European Council. An agreement would then be negotiated and concluded with the State concerned on the arrangements for its withdrawal. The agreement that would result from the negotiations would have to be adopted by a qualified majority of the European Council. If a former Member State wishes to become a Member again, that State would have to seek membership in the usual manner, and applications would be processed according to the usual procedures provided by Article 50(5).

http://www.cjel.net/online/17_2-holberg

You'll also find more info on www.theeuroprobe.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a whole evening reading about this a couple of weeks ago, but I don't have time to gather up all the info I read that night. Essentially it centres around the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 50 and how decisions are passed after 31st March 2017. There's some information here, but you'll have to do some background reading to form a fuller picture. The crux of my comment, was it won't be as easy to leave after 31st March next year.

http://www.cjel.net/online/17_2-holberg

You'll also find more info on www.theeuroprobe.org

I don't read that as a member state cannot still leave if it wants to. The majority vote has changed from 75% to 55% but I read that as for what is agreed at the negotiations to try tempt the member state to stay.

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” This provision establishes a procedure to be followed if a Member State wishes to withdraw. If a Member State decides to withdraw, it must notify the European Council. An agreement would then be negotiated and concluded with the State concerned on the arrangements for its withdrawal. The agreement that would result from the negotiations would have to be adopted by a qualified majority of the European Council.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted yes. Anything that restricts the power of corrupt westminster politicians and landowners is good.

Why would joining the Euro be such a bad thing? You must like high house prices as prices in most of the Euro area are much cheaper than comparables in the UK.

Honestly Europe is not in such a bad state as UK focused propaganda would have you believe. I think many of the No voters have rarely been outside the UK and have been spoon fed doom and gloom stories from the mail.

Much of the doom n gloom propaganda is there to keep you frightened and in place.

If we were forced to join the Euro at some point then that would be forcing the government to live within their means rather than simultaneously lying to the public whilst running up massive debts.

Payments to landowners will continue regardless of being part of Europe, this has already been written about and planned for. At least being in Europe there is the possibility of them lowering single farm payments to the narcissistic house of lords,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine wrote this to me a few weeks back and I think he makes some good points. Feel free to pick it pieces :)

"I don't like the EU as it is today. It's undemocratic and corrupt, the best bits about it are being ruined and, like the Labour Party says, it needs reforming in favour of workers, but I can't see how that would happen.

And, Boris Johnson said recently: "If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future."

Clueless.

The kind of "jolly hockey sticks" attitude you see from managers who think because they don't know anything about it, it must be easy. Trade deals consist of thousands of pages of minute detail. This does not happen just with a "can-do" attitude and optimism! They can take years to negotiate, and still be a pile of crap.

The "leave" group is probably strategically correct not to go into detail about what a Brexit would look like. Because if you think about the details, they're horrifying.

I can see at least 8 practical problems that could lead to carnage.

Problem 1: We have a limited number of trade negotiators. We will have many, many deals to negotiate. Unless you're negotiating the same deal, it's just not practical to try and negotiate them all in parallel. This means either delay, or cheating.

Problem 2: Anything done at great speed will contain potentially devastating mistakes and short-cuts. The mostly likely short-cut taken will be to copy and paste entire sections from existing trade-deals, many of which themselves are dodgy.

Problem 3: Since we're in a hurry and under pressure, other negotiating partners will assume we'd sign anything. And they might well be right. This puts us at a huge disadvantage in negotiations.

Problem 4: more different rules for dealing with different countries is a huge burden on business, especially small businesses who trade with Europe but who cannot keep up with what's bound to be a huge number of drastic changes over a short period of time.

Problem 5: the number of trade deals, their apparent urgency and MPs' inexperience with/reluctance to read trade deals means that most deals will be put through with minimal scrutiny, with again, potentially devastating consequences. It's a classic case of "We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it". And of course, anyone against any trade deal would be accused of being "unpatriotic" or "anti-trade".

Problem 6: If trade deals are copy/pasted, what will the template be? Given the Government is so keen on TTIP, why not rip bits out of that? Who would bet against it? The danger to institutions like the NHS from malign or incompetent legislation is immense.

Problem 7: even when the Government wasn't under pressure it's shown a great willingness to sell off the family silver. What would happen if it was under pressure with a greedy negotiating partner backed up by threats of legal action and persuasive lobbyists? We know from TTIP that consumer champions are let nowhere near trade deals while they're being written, but corporate lobbyists are given the red carpet treatment and the chance to "contribute".

Problem 8: where there's chaos, there's opportunists. Can you imagine the highly skilled lobbyists from banks and corporations being able to resist being able to meddle in a pool of trade agreements that no one is scrutinising? It's a corporate wet dream. They wouldn't even need TTIP. And the Government might even be grateful that they were getting all this free "support" to speed things up.

Now picture all of the above while dealing with a referendum in Scotland and with Boris Johnson in charge.

As I said, I can't see this being anything but carnage.

Boris said "we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future".

Boris, we can imagine it, but we shouldn't let nationalistic pride blind us to the fact that incompetence, greed and malice will find a way to make life worse for the little guy, and that everything we know about how the system works indicates that it will not go well for the British people.

But hey, politicians, civil servants, consultants, lobbyists, corporations and bankers will undoubtedly make out like bandits."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could write an essay on why you're so wide of the mark, but I'll just point out your most significant formal fallacies for now - The EU Commission wasn't elected by the public, let alone the British public, which means they're a non democratic government and can't be voted out of their position. They overthrew/blackmailed the non-subservient Italian and Greek democratically elected leaders and yet you think it's propaganda. Are you mad? The Euro Zone is collapsing. Has that escaped your observational prowess?

I've lived all over the world and there isn't a country I'd rather live in than Britain, but I want it for British people and British values.

I voted yes. Anything that restricts the power of corrupt westminster politicians and landowners is good.

Why would joining the Euro be such a bad thing? You must like high house prices as prices in most of the Euro area are much cheaper than comparables in the UK.

Honestly Europe is not in such a bad state as UK focused propaganda would have you believe. I think many of the No voters have rarely been outside the UK and have been spoon fed doom and gloom stories from the mail.

Much of the doom n gloom propaganda is there to keep you frightened and in place.

If we were forced to join the Euro at some point then that would be forcing the government to live within their means rather than simultaneously lying to the public whilst running up massive debts.

Payments to landowners will continue regardless of being part of Europe, this has already been written about and planned for. At least being in Europe there is the possibility of them lowering single farm payments to the narcissistic house of lords,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's to do with this comment and the single quote I posted above doesn't do the concern justice - "These changes mean that Members States may find their interests overruled by other Member State more frequently than they had before."

As I said, it took a while to pull all the information together and I agreed in the end, it is a concern.

I don't read that as a member state cannot still leave if it wants to. The majority vote has changed from 75% to 55% but I read that as for what is agreed at the negotiations to try tempt the member state to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only one small side of the argument, what about self determination? Surely that trumps everything else?

I'm of the opinion that Britain pioneered modern democracy and we managed perfectly well outside of the EU before it existed and we'll do it again.

A friend of mine wrote this to me a few weeks back and I think he makes some good points. Feel free to pick it pieces :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only one small side of the argument, what about self determination? Surely that trumps everything else?

Not according to Cameron today. The "economy" trumps democracy and self-determination, says the PM of a (nominally) parliamentary democracy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485478/David-Cameron-blasts-Boris-claiming-job-losses-price-worth-paying-Brexit-warning-important-people-s-financial-security.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why won't anyone admit the EU is collapsing? It's an impossible debate unless you're realistic about the EU's fate. Job losses are coming world wide, financial incompetence of the ECB is largely to blame. FFS - The Emperor has NO clothes!!!

Not according to Cameron today. The "economy" trumps democracy and self-determination, says the PM of a (nominally) parliamentary democracy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3485478/David-Cameron-blasts-Boris-claiming-job-losses-price-worth-paying-Brexit-warning-important-people-s-financial-security.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only one small side of the argument, what about self determination? Surely that trumps everything else?

I'm of the opinion that Britain pioneered modern democracy and we managed perfectly well outside of the EU before it existed and we'll do it again.

Self determination is an illusion anyway. When is the last time our democratically elected govt listened to any of its constituents once it go into power.

Don't get me wrong. I think having a say is a great thing. Do I think Brexit will give us power over the corporations that call the shots for our democratically elected officials? Nope.

Besides - Great Britain's natural state is to be ruled over by a king/queen. And besides self-determination is a concept that was invented by our European friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a whole evening reading about this a couple of weeks ago, but I don't have time to gather up all the info I read that night. Essentially it centres around the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 50 and how decisions are passed after 31st March 2017. There's some information here, but you'll have to do some background reading to form a fuller picture. The crux of my comment, was it won't be as easy to leave after 31st March next year.

http://www.cjel.net/online/17_2-holberg

You'll also find more info on www.theeuroprobe.org

Thanks for the links. I read the article as the UK can invoke Article 50 to leave without approval from the other EU countries but is then subject to renegotiations with the majority rule.

Useful article here:

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

Democorruptcy got in first :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One step at a time and this is certainly a step in the right direction. This referendum reminds me of the last referendum, where nobody really appreciated what proportional representation meant until it was too late. Let's not let this one slip us by.

The Queen is apolitical. The concept of self-determination was fought to the brutal end in both world wars. Have you forgotten?

Self determination is an illusion anyway. When is the last time our democratically elected govt listened to any of its constituents once it go into power.

Don't get me wrong. I think having a say is a great thing. Do I think Brexit will give us power over the corporations that call the shots for our democratically elected officials? Nope.

Besides - Great Britain's natural state is to be ruled over by a king/queen. And besides self-determination is a concept that was invented by our European friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whether you will gain from Brexit depends on your status. If you are a young drone workers and you vote to stay in you are a turkey voting for Christmas and will get stuffed. Curiously boomers seem to make up the most vociferous out camp. You know retired consumers that rely on Polish check out staff at Lidl, a Bulgarian to pull pints at Wetherspoons and a Latvian nurse once they go into a care home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One step at a time and this is certainly a step in the right direction. This referendum reminds me of the last referendum, where nobody really appreciated what proportional representation meant until it was too late. Let's not let this one slip us by.

The Queen is apolitical. The concept of self-determination was fought to the brutal end in both world wars. Have you forgotten?

I wasn't around for either of them. But the way things are headed with nationalism rising and economies tanking it looks like i'll be here for the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whether you will gain from Brexit depends on your status. If you are a young drone workers and you vote to stay in you are a turkey voting for Christmas and will get stuffed. Curiously boomers seem to make up the most vociferous out camp. You know retired consumers that rely on Polish check out staff at Lidl, a Bulgarian to pull pints at Wetherspoons and a Latvian nurse once they go into a care home.

The same people who will be writing into the Daily Mail complaining that they just had to pay £100 per person for a visa to go and stay in their own villa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the boomers are the biggest threat to an "OUT" vote. The young need to be politicised and quickly.

I think whether you will gain from Brexit depends on your status. If you are a young drone workers and you vote to stay in you are a turkey voting for Christmas and will get stuffed. Curiously boomers seem to make up the most vociferous out camp. You know retired consumers that rely on Polish check out staff at Lidl, a Bulgarian to pull pints at Wetherspoons and a Latvian nurse once they go into a care home.

Edited by warpig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine wrote this to me a few weeks back and I think he makes some good points. Feel free to pick it pieces :)

"I don't like the EU as it is today. It's undemocratic and corrupt, the best bits about it are being ruined and, like the Labour Party says, it needs reforming in favour of workers, but I can't see how that would happen.

I think that`s a good enough reason alone to justify leaving

I`m for out but it would be a different story if i could see change on the horizon ,as it stand now there`s not even a chance of that happening for the reasons you state above

I think the EU as it`s stands is doomed to fail at some point if there is no change ,i would be all for a united states of europe in the same way the USA works ,fully democratic political and fiscal union but there is no chance on earth this will happen sa it`s a union of have`s and have not`s with the have`s making the rules,then trampling over the smaller states purely to further their vested interests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are Osborne and Cameron such "in" enthusiasts then?

Not to mention Sir Evelyn Rothschild and Goldman Sachs.

This argument about doing it to protect us from banksters is absolutely laughable. It's sovereignty that does the protecting, the very sovereignty people want to give up to be protected. You're not going to get security or liberty doing that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.