EU Referendum Vote - Poll

Sporky

Is the sink filling up though? Don't we need immigration to keep the NHS running?

Fretwired

Sporky said:

quarky said:

As I said before, anyone who votes remain tomorrow has no right to complain about a shortage of any of those things for them or their children in the future.

Nonsense. That'd be like me saying that anyone who votes leave tomorrow has no right to complain about the EU thereafter. You don't get to decide what people are allowed to comment on.

As for Fret's North Korea (I assume) video, and the still-untrue assertion that the EU are unelected, it's hardly worth responding. Other than to parody his comment - a typical leave reaction.

Serious question. Besides the MEPs, who have no power, who is actually elected?

quarky

No one is saying we can't have immigration, there are plenty of benefits to it, but we can control the amount and the skills of the people that come in, just like every other non-EU country on the planet. We can use supply to help deal with demand (or at least attempt to).

Unless of course we remain in the EU, where we don't really have that control.

So is the sink filling? When we have all those shortages I mentioned earlier, yes, I think it is. Or do you think house prices are OK? The NHS, roads, rail, schools, etc. aren't stretched through demand but through incompetence (I would accept there is certainly some of that!)?

Sporky

Fretwired said:

Serious question. Besides the MEPs, who have no power, who is actually elected?

"Besides the elected people, [insert weasel words], who is elected?"

Seriously?

Heartfeltdawn

quarky said:

As I said before, anyone who votes remain tomorrow has no right to complain about a shortage of any of those things for them or their children in the future.

So I should vote Leave and kill the dictatorial EU otherwise the dictatorial Quarky says I have no right to complain. 

Fretwired said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Some people have talked themselves into a belief that UK voters and UK MPs aren't capable of making those sorts of decisions, and they are best referred to expert unelected officials in Brussels

I didn't say that. Quoting system SNAFU

Fretwired said:

If you look at the polls and analysis I think the shift to Remain has more to do with Osborne's dire threats of tax rises and jobs cuts and a massive austerity budget. The best Sadiq Khan could come up with in last nights debate was "lies, lies, lies" every time Boris spoke. I suppose being London mayor he's now in the pocket of the bankers and the City of London - he needs their tax money and generosity for good causes.

You say that Sadiq Khan is in the pockets of the bankers now he's Mayor. He's been Mayor for less than two months. 

Yet on the Leave side you don't apply this to Boris, a man who was Mayor for two terms and who memorably wrote an article in the Telegraph saying "Stop bashing the bankers" in 2012. 

So why is Khan in the pocket of the bankers and Boris isn't?  

quarky

Heartfeltdawn said:

quarky said:

As I said before, anyone who votes remain tomorrow has no right to complain about a shortage of any of those things for them or their children in the future.

So I should vote Leave and kill the dictatorial EU otherwise the dictatorial Quarky says I have no right to complain. 

And the Strawman Award goes too.... @Heartfeltdawn. Well done, come and collect it when you are ready

Sporky

Heartfeltdawn said:

Yet on the Leave side you don't apply this to Boris, a man who was Mayor for two terms and who memorably wrote an article in the Telegraph saying "Stop bashing the bankers" in 2012.

And was fired by The Times for lying about the EU.

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

Serious question. Besides the MEPs, who have no power, who is actually elected?

"Besides the elected people, [insert weasel words], who is elected?"

Seriously?

Why don't you answer the question. The MEPs have no power - they vote things through. They can't suggest legislation and they can't amend it. The election of Junker was a farce. There was only one name on the ballot paper. His appointment had been decided behind closed doors by faceless bureaucrats. The governments couldn't agree. Cameron made a twat of himself by trying to block him and was made to fly to Brussels and apologise when he was elected.

You didn't watch the Tony Benn video ...

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired said:

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

Serious question. Besides the MEPs, who have no power, who is actually elected?

"Besides the elected people, [insert weasel words], who is elected?"

Seriously?

Why don't you answer the question. The MEPs have no power - they vote things through. They can't suggest legislation and they can't amend it. 

Thats a complete and utter fabrication. From the EU website:

"How does the Parliament work?

Parliament's work comprises two main stages:

Committees - to prepare legislation. 

The Parliament numbers 20 committees and two subcommittees, each handling a particular policy area. The committees examine proposals for legislation, and MEPs and political groups can put forward amendments or propose to reject a bill. These issues are also debated within the political groups.

Plenary sessions – to pass legislation.

This is when all the MEPs gather in the chamber to give a final vote on the proposed legislation and the proposed amendments. Normally held in Strasbourg for four days a month, but sometimes there are additional sessions in Brussels"

http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-parliament/index_en.htm

Sporky

Fretwired said:

Why don't you answer the question.

Because it wasn't a question.

The MEPs have no power - they vote things through. They can't suggest legislation and they can't amend it.

Utterly untrue again.

"MEPs have the power to approve, amend or reject nearly all EU legislation. They hold the European Commission to account and can force it to resign. The European Parliament also decides on the EU budget and influences how EU money is spent."

I'm not sure you understand what the EU is - most of your claims about it are provably false.

quarky

Actually, I think Fret's point was correct in the past, it looks like a recent change:

"The MEPs now have the power to amend EU laws and elect the Commission, as well as several other key powers."

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-european-parliament/

Does anyone actually know if they can amended/repeal legislation that is already passed yet?

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

Why don't you answer the question.

Because it wasn't a question.

The MEPs have no power - they vote things through. They can't suggest legislation and they can't amend it.

Utterly untrue again.

"MEPs have the power to approve, amend or reject nearly all EU legislation. They hold the European Commission to account and can force it to resign. The European Parliament also decides on the EU budget and influences how EU money is spent."

I'm not sure you understand what the EU is - most of your claims about it are provably false.

You are just reading what it says on the EU website. The MEPs are aligned in political blocs. The chances of getting things blocked is low - Labour MEPs did manage to get law on Ports amended, but it is rare. Most of the time stuff gets approved with little or no debate and all the big decisions are made by the national governments and the Commission behind closed doors. How things are supposed to work and how they actually work can differ greatly - go on to YouTube as there are plenty of videos of Farage lambasting Junker and co for a lack of democracy.

You get a sense of it here:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/dec/17/how-often-do-uk-meps-get-their-way

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired said:

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

Why don't you answer the question.

Because it wasn't a question.

The MEPs have no power - they vote things through. They can't suggest legislation and they can't amend it.

Utterly untrue again.

"MEPs have the power to approve, amend or reject nearly all EU legislation. They hold the European Commission to account and can force it to resign. The European Parliament also decides on the EU budget and influences how EU money is spent."

I'm not sure you understand what the EU is - most of your claims about it are provably false.

You are just reading what it says on the EU website. The MEPs are aligned in political blocs. The chances of getting things blocked is low - Labour MEPs did manage to get law on Ports amended, but it is rare. Most of the time stuff gets approved with little or no debate and all the big decisions are made by the national governments and the Commission behind closed doors. How things are supposed to work and how they actually work can differ greatly - go on to YouTube as there are plenty of videos of Farage lambasting Junker and co for a lack of democracy.

You get a sense of it here:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/dec/17/how-often-do-uk-meps-get-their-way

Would that be the democratically elected national governments? 

So far we've learned that far from having no power, MEPs actually have a lot, and that the British Government negotiates with other Governments on our behalf to negotiate legislation. 

I literally laughed at you telling @sporky off for the outlandish idea of reading the EU website to find out how the EU works though. Thanks for that  

Mkjackary

Emp_Fab;1121011" said:

So, apart from free trade, EU-wide safety regulations, the right to live, work or retire anywhere in Europe, farming subsidies, the right to free emergency healthcare and the sharing of resources to fight crime and terrorism.... What has the EU ever done for us?

Free trade - this isn't exclusive to being a member of the EU, lots of countries have free trade deals, Canada for instance.

EU wide safety regulations -
Soesn't matter to me in the slightest, although for some it will (they may like or dislike it) but for me I don't particularly care. And I doubt we would drop most of our current ones, only the ones that have a negative impact on the UK. I don't think we need to pay all the money we do and give up all we do to get someone else to decide this kind of thing for us, I'm pretty sure we can make our own safety regulations.

Right to live and work -
that is a good point, having a *right* to do that can be seen as good, however it works two ways, personally I would be happier with needing visas as it would be very similar, with the exclusion of not needing to accept unskilled labour. However I get it, some people don't get that, that's fair enough.

Retire -
you seriously saying Spain will kick out over a million pensioners? They get all their money from their UK pension and spend it all in Spain boosting the Spanish economy, they would be stupid to stop that.

Farming subsides -
Again, are you seriously saying farmers benefit from being in the eu? Like forcing small farmers to grow three different types of crops and instead what is in highest demand. Have you actually looked at the eu agricultural policy? Plus the leave and some members or remain have said in the event of leave, where the eu currently subsidises will keep being subsidised.

Free emergency health care -
this is great, however the UK/NHS has agreements with many countries outside the EEA about this, there is a high possibility we would keep come kind of reciprocal agreement. However I concede that it isn't guaranteed and there is a chance we would need health insurance when traveling to the eu, and that would be worse than currently, untill you bring into account again that it goes both ways.

Sharing of resources to fight crime -
you saying that france, Belgium,germany etc won't want to keep our agreement with regards to sharing information? That would be a negative for all countries involved. The two years after the 23rd would be I'm part in making agreements like this. We already have information sharing with lots of other large countries, why would we not have one with the eu, especially considering we already have them.

Now the eu has done many good things for us, but in my opinion the things you have just mentioned aren't any of those things.

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Fretwired said:

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

Why don't you answer the question.

Because it wasn't a question.

The MEPs have no power - they vote things through. They can't suggest legislation and they can't amend it.

Utterly untrue again.

"MEPs have the power to approve, amend or reject nearly all EU legislation. They hold the European Commission to account and can force it to resign. The European Parliament also decides on the EU budget and influences how EU money is spent."

I'm not sure you understand what the EU is - most of your claims about it are provably false.

You are just reading what it says on the EU website. The MEPs are aligned in political blocs. The chances of getting things blocked is low - Labour MEPs did manage to get law on Ports amended, but it is rare. Most of the time stuff gets approved with little or no debate and all the big decisions are made by the national governments and the Commission behind closed doors. How things are supposed to work and how they actually work can differ greatly - go on to YouTube as there are plenty of videos of Farage lambasting Junker and co for a lack of democracy.

You get a sense of it here:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/dec/17/how-often-do-uk-meps-get-their-way

Would that be the democratically elected national governments? 

So far we've learned that far from having no power, MEPs actually have a lot, and that the British Government negotiates with other Governments on our behalf to negotiate legislation. 

I literally laughed at you telling @sporky off for the outlandish idea of reading the EU website to find out how the EU works though. Thanks for that  

Fine .. MEPs don't actually amend the legislation .. it goes back round the loop. And last time I checked democracy was about asking citizens what they thought, but obviously not - why can't MEPs suggest legislation - we elected them? Cameron's done so well .. and the Tory MEPs have a great track record in getting reform. The system is rigged, but hey who cares. It looks like democracy so it must be.

Let's agree to disagree. Nobody ever asked me what I thought of closer integration and the EUs finding the view is gaining traction throughout the EU.

Mkjackary

Sporky;1121231" said:

quarky said:





As I wrote to Myranda, it is about supply and demand, and in the EU we can't effectively control demand. And actually, Labour started privatisation of the NHS, and they are officially in the remain camp. Where do these assumptions come from?










But non-EU immigration is higher than EU immigration.

Yes, but so it bloody well should be, it is 94% of the people on this earth.

The eu is just over 6 percent of the population of the planet and it is just under half of our immigration net.

As said we can control one of the taps but the other tap is a constantly changing variable we have no control over (freedom of movement of people). If we made fairer rules where your chances of being accepted for a visa is based on what you can bring to our country and not where you are from, that will have a positive impact on the UK. And it will also enable us to control the flow of immigration whilst we adjust our schools, NHS and housing capacity to cope with higher levels.

We can make immigration work for us and what we need, instead of having to work our NHS, schools, housing etc around immigration.

littlegreenman

Mkjackary said:

Sporky;1121231" said:

quarky said:





As I wrote to Myranda, it is about supply and demand, and in the EU we can't effectively control demand. And actually, Labour started privatisation of the NHS, and they are officially in the remain camp. Where do these assumptions come from?










But non-EU immigration is higher than EU immigration.

Yes, but so it bloody well should be, it is 94% of the people on this earth.

The eu is just over 6 percent of the population of the planet and it is just under half of our immigration net.

As said we can control one of the taps but the other tap is a constantly changing variable we have no control over (freedom of movement of people). If we made fairer rules where your chances of being accepted for a visa is based on what you can bring to our country and not where you are from, that will have a positive impact on the UK. And it will also enable us to control the flow of immigration whilst we adjust our schools, NHS and housing capacity to cope with higher levels.

We can make immigration work for us and what we need, instead of having to work our NHS, schools, housing etc around immigration.

*edit* It's closer to 7%

I used Europe and not the EU, my bad.

Mkjackary

littlegreenman;1121361" said:

Mkjackary said:

Sporky;1121231" said:quarky said:



*edit* It's closer to 7%

I used Europe and not the EU, my bad.

Yes and you have to deduct the UK's population from that too. Eu currently is 7.1%, take away the UK which is 0.88% gives 6.22%


Good on you for correcting yourself though. The extra percent counts

chillidoggy

Will this thread end up in a massive fight?

ICBM

Fretwired said:

The system is rigged, but hey who cares. It looks like democracy so it must be.

Just like the British FPTP electoral system which usually rewards the largest minority with near-absolute power for five years, in which time they can come up with almost any wheeze they want to which the public never voted for or agreed to - even the minority who did actually vote them into office - and push it through parliament.

And the only guarantor of holding up or moderating any of this - not blocking it entirely - is an unelected higher chamber now composed only of the appointees of the last few governments who haven't died yet.

And the final guarantor of our freedoms - who has the power to refuse to sign any legislation, or dismiss the government, or choose whoever she wants to form the next one, if she really so chooses - and who has the personal sworn loyalty of the armed forces to back her up if it comes to it - is a woman who got the job because it was her father's, and his father before him, and so on via very circuitous route back to the Norman Conquest.

But it looks vaguely like democracy and we call it that, so it must be.

Maybe we should address some of these problems first, before criticising anyone else's system for not being democratic enough.

(And for what it's worth I am not unhappy about the Queen having that power.)