[lambert1]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I thought Labour already had a Referendum in the pipeline for next term?

We will lose some influence if we pull out of the EU. As for things have changed, I have heard that one before because there was a Referendum back in 1975 which was in favour of Continued Membership (Labour changed the terms of Membership)

If a Referendum goes ahead on here then I will vote for Continued Membership because the benefits outweigh the arguments of pulling out. Europe needs reform but not in this way, Institutional; Reform: There is talk of merging the Commission President and European Council President and electi8ng it, giving the European Parliament the right of initiative etc

I agree Britain needs to remain in the EU to influence Polish pet owning regulations.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by lambert1)
I agree Britain needs to remain in the EU to influence Polish pet owning regulations.

Its not just that though, We have a large Armed Forces in Europe and British Diplomacy is up there. Britain is a major player in CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy)

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I thought Labour already had a Referendum in the pipeline for next term?

We will lose some influence if we pull out of the EU. As for things have changed, I have heard that one before because there was a Referendum back in 1975 which was in favour of Continued Membership (Labour changed the terms of Membership)

If a Referendum goes ahead on here then I will vote for Continued Membership because the benefits outweigh the arguments of pulling out. Europe needs reform but not in this way, Institutional; Reform: There is talk of merging the Commission President and European Council President and electi8ng it, giving the European Parliament the right of initiative etc

Labour may do. I certainly intend to hold a referendum next term if I'm still leading TSR UKIP. We need a referendum, but there's still more work to do and more powers to pull back before we can put a deal to the people.

We won't lose our influence. Take foreign affairs. We don't need some woman dealing with our foreign affairs. We have a strong enough voice to speak on the international stage without needing the EU to interfere. The MHoC has the canon amendment which overrules EU law. Free trade is now worldwide thanks to this Government's work - what benefits remain?

While it is a positive step, I believe that electing the president of the EU is a step towards a pan-European nation. The EU is not a nation state. The EU should not have a Parliament or a President. It should give its member states back the powers that it was wrongly given.

[lambert1]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Its not just that though, We have a large Armed Forces in Europe and British Diplomacy is up there. Britain is a major player in CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy)

Why do we care about the foreign and security policies of other countries? I don't give a damn about the security policy of Italy so why do you?

[Morgsie]

(Original post by toronto353)
Labour may do. I certainly intend to hold a referendum next term if I'm still leading TSR UKIP. We need a referendum, but there's still more work to do and more powers to pull back before we can put a deal to the people.

We won't lose our influence. Take foreign affairs. We don't need some woman dealing with our foreign affairs. We have a strong enough voice to speak on the international stage without needing the EU to interfere. The MHoC has the canon amendment which overrules EU law. Free trade is now worldwide thanks to this Government's work - what benefits remain?

While it is a positive step, I believe that electing the president of the EU is a step towards a pan-European nation. The EU is not a nation state. The EU should not have a Parliament or a President. It should give its member states back the powers that it was wrongly given.

Actually the noble Baroness has the right of initiative but the Member States decide and she can speak for Europe if they all agree. She also does of bilateral work.

The European Parliament is the only institution that represents the People of Europe and has gained various stuff since 1979 when the first Elections took place. Both States and the Parliament pass Laws under OLP (Ordinary Legislative Procedure)

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Actually the noble Baroness has the right of initiative but the Member States decide and she can speak for Europe if they all agree. She also does of bilateral work.

The European Parliament is the only institution that represents the People of Europe and has gained various stuff since 1979 when the first Elections took place. Both States and the Parliament pass Laws under OLP (Ordinary Legislative Procedure)

Why do we need her at all? Is the UK not a big enough player on the international stage that we can't speak for ourselves? We don't need the Baroness. Let the UK speak for itself.

Individual national Parliaments represent their people. There is no such people as the people of Europe. I am not a European citizen. I am a British citizen in a country which has a Parliament which represents me. The EU has no right to possess the powers that it does have and I intend to claw them back before this referendum.

(Original post by lambert1)
Why do we care about the foreign and security policies of other countries? I don't give a damn about the security policy of Italy so why do you?

If we pulled out though, we wouldn't be affected - that is why the CFSP argument doesn't work. We are in the Security Council and the G8, we can speak for ourselves without needing the EU's help.

[lambert1]

(Original post by toronto353)


If we pulled out though, we wouldn't be affected - that is why the CFSP argument doesn't work. We are in the Security Council and the G8, we can speak for ourselves without needing the EU's help.

I don't understand his argument at all what is good about influencing the policies of other countries?

[Morgsie]

(Original post by toronto353)
Why do we need her at all? Is the UK not a big enough player on the international stage that we can't speak for ourselves? We don't need the Baroness. Let the UK speak for itself.

Individual national Parliaments represent their people. There is no such people as the people of Europe. I am not a European citizen. I am a British citizen in a country which has a Parliament which represents me. The EU has no right to possess the powers that it does have and I intend to claw them back before this referendum.




If we pulled out though, we wouldn't be affected - that is why the CFSP argument doesn't work. We are in the Security Council and the G8, we can speak for ourselves without needing the EU's help.

We was a major player up until the Suez Crisis, the only thing we have is the Nukes and our membership of the EU, NATO and the UN.

National Parliaments do have a role in the EU System, warning signs.

[LETSJaM]

AYE AYE AYE.

<3 x

[Morgsie]

(Original post by lambert1)
I don't understand his argument at all what is good about influencing the policies of other countries?

My point is 27 coming together and acting as 1

[toronto353]

(Original post by lambert1)
I don't understand his argument at all what is good about influencing the policies of other countries?

Nothing. We have no right to have an influence over other EU states' policies. Why should the UK have a say on what Italy does? It shouldn't. Let's be separate entities and states again, but work together for the common good. The EU doesn't do this.

[lambert1]

(Original post by Morgsie)
My point is 27 coming together and acting as 1

What is good about acting as 1? Why not just do it via the UN that way we can influence 180+ countries instead of a pathetic 27.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
We was a major player up until the Suez Crisis, the only thing we have is the Nukes and our membership of the EU, NATO and the UN.

National Parliaments do have a role in the EU System, warning signs.

Our membership of the EU counts for little on the international stage. We would be just as strong, if not stronger without it because we wouldn't be lashed to the EU and would be free to make our own decisions.

National Parliaments don't have as great a say as they should have. The EU shouldn't possess any of the powers it does and I shall be bringing a repatriation Bill before this House to bring back powers that the EU shouldn't possess.

[Melancholy]

(Original post by toronto353)
...and would be free to make our own decisions...

I find this interesting. I would make a distinction between being free to make one's own decision and being free to choose one's own outcome. The latter is, arguably, more desirable.

Imagine a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. Imagine some sets of preferences, with each number symbolising some utility.


________________ A cooperates _____ A defects

B cooperates_______200, 200__________ 1000, 0
B defects _________ 0, 1000 ___________ 0, 0

Since the incentive is always to defect, there is a high likelihood both A and B will receive zero utility, because of a fundamental problem in the incentive structure, and since there is no platform through which A and B can communicate and legally anchor down their choices to co-operate. In this case, whilst they may desire to co-operate, because of the incentive structures for defection for the other agent, they are doomed to defect and receive no utility.

Now imagine this on a wider international scale, where countries make up agents. Let's take the example of corporations tax, or taxes on the banking sector. No country has an incentive to lower these taxes because they risk capital flight. If A co-operates but B defects, then B receives the huge benefits from capital flight. The incentive is to defect. However, an organisation that legally binds nations to co-operate, regardless of independent incentive structures unique to countries during different periods of time under different governments, ensures that a mutually beneficial aim is served.

Countries outside of this arrangement might be free to choose their own tax rates in a negatively free sense. However, my point is that countries are not free to set the tax rates that they want, independent of outside pressures. And this is where, actually, latching oneself onto a legal body can actually increase one's freedom (in a positive sense).

[toronto353]

(Original post by Melancholy)
I find this interesting. I would make a distinction between being free to make one's own decision and being free to choose one's own outcome. The latter is, arguably, more desirable.

Imagine a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. Imagine some sets of preferences, with each number symbolising some utility.


________________ A cooperates _____ A defects

B cooperates_______200, 200__________ 1000, 0
B defects _________ 0, 1000 ___________ 0, 0

Since the incentive is always to defect, there is a high likelihood both A and B will receive zero utility, because of a fundamental problem in the incentive structure, and since there is no platform through which A and B can communicate and legally anchor down their choices to co-operate. In this case, whilst they may desire to co-operate, because of the incentive structures for defection for the other agent, they are doomed to defect and receive no utility.

Now imagine this on a wider international scale, where countries make up agents. Let's take the example of corporations tax, or taxes on the banking sector. No country has an incentive to lower these taxes because they risk capital flight. If A co-operates but B defects, then B receives the huge benefits from capital flight. The incentive is to defect. However, an organisation that legally binds nations to co-operate, regardless of independent incentive structures unique to countries during different periods of time under different governments, ensures that a mutually beneficial aim is served.

Countries outside of this arrangement might be free to choose their own tax rates in a negatively free sense. However, my point is that countries are not free to set the tax rates that they want, independent of outside pressures. And this is where, actually, latching oneself onto a legal body can actually increase one's freedom (in a positive sense).

I like your table there and your argument - I've got to admit that you've impressed me of late. However, I still believe that we would have a greater freedom outside of the EU. I'm not saying don't work with Europe because we're in an international world, but do we want to be governed by the EU as we are increasingly being? No.

[Birchington]

I fail to see the point in holding yet another referendum on the EU not long after the last one. If people want one, great, but it seems unnecessary.

[eff01]

Mr Speaker, this House held a referendum on this matter less than two years ago, where 60% of people voted for staying in the European Union.

With the referendum held so recently, I do not understand the need for another referendum. I would understand TSR UKIP's argument for holding a referendum if TSR had been denied one for a very long time, but the people haven't. The honourable members talk about the fact that much has happened between now and then that makes this referendum justified, but Mr Speaker, I ask the honourable members what will happen if the people vote again for staying in the EU and then a few months down the line major changes are made to the EU, do the honourable members advocate holding a referendum then as well?

The facts are clear to this House, Mr Speaker. Honourable members are trying to capitalise on the poor ecominic climate and uncertainty in Europe and calling for this referendum in the hope that some of this feeling of uncertainty, transfers into an anti European Union vote.

[toronto353]

(Original post by eff01)
Mr Speaker, this House held a referendum on this matter less than two years ago, where 60% of people voted for staying in the European Union.

With the referendum held so recently, I do not understand the need for another referendum. I would understand TSR UKIP's argument for holding a referendum if TSR had been denied one for a very long time, but the people haven't. The honourable members talk about the fact that much has happened between now and then that makes this referendum justified, but Mr Speaker, I ask the honourable members what will happen if the people vote again for staying in the EU and then a few months down the line major changes are made to the EU, do the honourable members advocate holding a referendum then as well?

The facts are clear to this House, Mr Speaker. Honourable members are trying to capitalise on the poor ecominic climate and uncertainty in Europe and calling for this referendum in the hope that some of this feeling of uncertainty, transfers into an anti European Union vote.

In TSR terms, two years will see a lot of change over so it's perfectly reasonable to hold a referendum again. Our position in Europe has changed given that free trade is now worldwide and that more powers will be repatriated within the coming days to this House. The deal with Europe has changed and so it is right that the people are given a say on the new deal which is different than the one offered two years ago.

Also, I'm Right Honourable.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I thought Labour...

You seem to know a lot about other parties. Who is your dupe?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to set up a committee to find out his sources... "The Inquisition of the Clearly Guilty Un-Honourable Morgsie"

[Morgsie]

(Original post by tehFrance)
You seem to know a lot about other parties. Who is your dupe?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to set up a committee to find out his sources... "The Inquisition of the Clearly Guilty Un-Honourable Morgsie"

You can go ahead and pursue your witch hunt against me, I have nothing to hide. You swore at a Colleague of mine earlier and now your victimizing me again, least I am not arrogant.

Labour tried to introduce one after the Monarchy one which was thrown out due to the 1 Referendum rule.