[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Duncan123)
All the laws the EU have put on the UK were at one point endorsed by a Prime Minister. Thatcher endorsed the SEA act, the most integrationary act ever.
Also, noone has forced us into the Euro. We have the opt-out from Maastricht. We're one of two countries that are never compelled to join the Euro

Your telling me the government is content with the status quo? this isn't the case. Its been the a notable aim of cameron to claw back powers from brussels. And its wrong to say that all the laws currently put in place by the EU are endorsed at all by the UK. They can pass certain degrees directly without the consent of parliament which effect everyones' daily lives such as employment. Our government only has to explicitly consent to any change in the treaty.

[Duncan123]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Your telling me the government is content with the status quo? this isn't the case. Its been the a notable aim of cameron to claw back powers from brussels. And its wrong to say that all the laws currently put in place by the EU are endorsed at all by the UK. They can pass certain degrees directly without the consent of parliament which effect everyones' daily lives such as employment. Our government only has to explicitly consent to any change in the treaty.

Firstly, if Cameron was that upset about it, he would have withdrawn us from the EU. Its not binding that anyone has to remain a member at all.
Secondly, can you name a single act that wasn't consented by the British government? Although the Commission proposes legislation all of it goes through the Council of Ministers, thus each head of state will consent to it before it becomes entrenched.

[117r]

I think the time has come to renegotiate our position within the EU to one more akin to that of Norway.

Leaving altogether would undoubtedly be a very poor decision, politically and economically.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by cl_steele)
im trying to find a point in that? so what if our GDP makes up 18% of the EUs? our GDP does not universally get funnelled into europe ... besides considering 40% of our trade is with the EU you really think that wont effect us just a little more than them?

Neither of us could afford to stop trade. So neither of us would.

[LMAC]

Oh yeah, look how badly Switzerland and Norway are doing..

(Original post by Morgsie)
No Way. We are better off in then we are out.

Economics: the Internal Market etc.

The EU has no mandate to make 75% of laws and legislation that must be followed in this country, what company would you give £45 million a day to that hasn't had it's accounts audited in nearly 20 years? People thinking that 'free trade' should cost £118 billion a year must think money grows on trees. It's not a question of whether Britain should leave, but when.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Neither of us could afford to stop trade. So neither of us would.

i didnt say either of us could stop trade?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Firstly, if Cameron was that upset about it, he would have withdrawn us from the EU. Its not binding that anyone has to remain a member at all.
Secondly, can you name a single act that wasn't consented by the British government? Although the Commission proposes legislation all of it goes through the Council of Ministers, thus each head of state will consent to it before it becomes entrenched.

correct me if im wrong but doesnt the the council of ministers use QMV to vote though so not every head of state has to agree?

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Duncan123)
Firstly, if Cameron was that upset about it, he would have withdrawn us from the EU. Its not binding that anyone has to remain a member at all.
Secondly, can you name a single act that wasn't consented by the British government? Although the Commission proposes legislation all of it goes through the Council of Ministers, thus each head of state will consent to it before it becomes entrenched.

A prime minister can't just withdraw from the EU, its like saying the queen although she has the power to do so can seize any area of land in the UK because it technically belongs to her but they cant excerise their power without consenting parliament or holding referendums to justify it.

I cant name any laws that have been passed into law without britains consent thus far but they are trying to bring back the transaction tax yet again through a different system of popular vote that would force the UK against its explicit will not to adopt it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...y-claims.html#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...l-the-way.html

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by cl_steele)
correct me if im wrong but doesnt the the council of ministers use QMV to vote though so not every head of state has to agree?

It depends on what is being voted on. Some areas still require unanimity, as does any treaty change (like the one Cameron vetoed), but much of it is QMV now. Wikipedia, as ever, does a better job than I can be bothered to, listing what QMV does and doesn't cover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_...European_Union

[Duncan123]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
It depends on what is being voted on. Some areas still require unanimity, as does any treaty change (like the one Cameron vetoed), but much of it is QMV now. Wikipedia, as ever, does a better job than I can be bothered to, listing what QMV does and doesn't cover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_...European_Union

QMV can't affect large areas of policy. Essentially anything that threatens sovereignty has to be put through unanimous vote

[Duncan123]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
A prime minister can't just withdraw from the EU, its like saying the queen although she has the power to do so can seize any area of land in the UK because it technically belongs to her but they cant excerise their power without consenting parliament or holding referendums to justify it.

I cant name any laws that have been passed into law without britains consent thus far but they are trying to bring back the transaction tax yet again through a different system of popular vote that would force the UK against its explicit will not to adopt it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...y-claims.html#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...l-the-way.html

No, all the PM needs is the consent of parliament or a referendum to withdraw from the EU. There's no formal mechanism so they can do it very simply.

Also, the EU can't impose any tax laws on countries. In the Amsterdam Treaty Blair made sure there was a 'red tape' over tax, so the EU has no right to impose any Union-wide tax.

As for the sources, you can't use bias media to prove a point. They won't look at both sides of the story equally.

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by Duncan123)
No, all the PM needs is the consent of parliament or a referendum to withdraw from the EU. There's no formal mechanism so they can do it very simply.

Also, the EU can't impose any tax laws on countries. In the Amsterdam Treaty Blair made sure there was a 'red tape' over tax, so the EU has no right to impose any Union-wide tax.

As for the sources, you can't use bias media to prove a point. They won't look at both sides of the story equally.

They can issue new taxes which is a massive story in the whole eurozone at the moment. And as for simply up and walking out you cant just do that because it would be devastating to the british economy. Your trying to make it seem so black and white. Your missing the point of my argument anyway, is that we need to regain our de-facto soveriengcy from the EU and not allow over 40% of our laws outside the uk. Its a big issue on Cameron's agenda with the EU and that of the conservative party.

[ukip72]

This question will soon be irrelevant since the EU is about to change dramatically with Eurozone countries fulfilling their dream of a European state and Britain hopefully negotiating a looser relationship based on free trade. Cameron won't give us an in/out referendum before then.

[L i b]

(Original post by LMAC)
Oh yeah, look how badly Switzerland and Norway are doing..

Norway is in the EFTA. Which basically means that they implement EU regulations on the common market with no input into how they are made. They're essentially a colony on the fringes of the Union.

The EU has no mandate to make 75% of laws and legislation

And what unit of measurement are you using for 'laws' here? Do tell me, please, what 'one law' looks like.

what company would you give £45 million a day to that hasn't had it's accounts audited in nearly 20 years?

It has them extensively audited. It does indeed have a problem (only a slight one, incidentally) in its accounting. This is entirely unsurprising for an organisation that acts primarily through other bodies: the problems are largely with the member-states rather than the EU bodies themselves.

[FrogInABog]

(Original post by 117r)
I think the time has come to renegotiate our position within the EU to one more akin to that of Norway.

Leaving altogether would undoubtedly be a very poor decision, politically and economically.

Absolutely right, in my opinion.

As I (and many others) have said time and again on this forum, our position needs to be one where we reap the benefits of the common market, whilst avoiding the hindrances of the bureaucracy that makes up the EU. We don't need 'political integration', or indeed financial integration (beyond the common market). What we really need is to get back to the original EEC, with all our powers returned to the UK, and the sooner we get that, the better.

Sadly, with the turmoil of the moment, the attitude seems to be one of 'fully in or fully out', so I don't know how feasible a renegotiation would be.