[Mechie]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
How?

We don't pay for the EU using any one single tax, but by paying a lump-sum out of general taxation, of about a net £8bn.

It's not even about that, with VAT reduced below 15%, we're currently breaking the rules regarding EU membership, and we shouldn't even get a referendum on it. We should be kicked out.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
It's not even about that, with VAT reduced below 15%, we're currently breaking the rules regarding EU membership, and we shouldn't even get a referendum on it. We should be kicked out.

Except that we have the Canon amendment to allow us to override EU law because we don't have the superstructures in place here. Thus, we don't have conditions of EU membership. Winning! \o/

I believe that the VAT question was one of the specific reasons we had the Canon Amendment.

[Mechie]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Except that we have the Canon amendment to allow us to override EU law because we don't have the superstructures in place here. Thus, we don't have conditions of EU membership. Winning! \o/

I believe that the VAT question was one of the specific reasons we had the Canon Amendment.

Yes, we have the Canon Amendment, but did the (model) EU ratify this? We can't just say ourselves "we're can break the EU rules!" if the EU don't agree.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Yes, we have the Canon Amendment, but did the (model) EU ratify this? We can't just say ourselves "we're can break the EU rules!" if the EU don't agree.

This was long before the model EU existed. So I think we can take ourselves as having an exemption since we were admitted to the model EU with this in place.

[PierceBrosnan]

A reluctant aye, I agree that our relationship for better or for worse has changed since the last referendum on the matter. However, as a Pro-EU individual naturally I will be voting in favour of a continuing relationship with the EU.

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Except that we have the Canon amendment to allow us to override EU law because we don't have the superstructures in place here. Thus, we don't have conditions of EU membership. Winning! \o/

I believe that the VAT question was one of the specific reasons we had the Canon Amendment.

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Yes, we have the Canon Amendment, but did the (model) EU ratify this? We can't just say ourselves "we're can break the EU rules!" if the EU don't agree.

The Canon amendment was written prior to the EU Bloc being established (that happened this term). Therefore, there is no compulsion to actually have the canon amendment ratified and in fact it's pointless doing so because if the bloc, as I assume they would, voted down the amendment, our canon amendment would still exist meaning that it being submitted to them would be pointless.

Admittedly, the MHoC is probably now on the peripheries of the EU Bloc and we will probably move further to the edges.

[eff01]

(Original post by toronto353)
That would be a difficult question to answer. It would depend on the scale of the change for one thing.

And for this reason, Mr Speaker, I will be voting against this motion. Until Honourable and Rt Honourable members do not get their desired outcome in any referendum, they will continuously call for referendum after referendum.

[toronto353]

(Original post by eff01)
And for this reason, Mr Speaker, I will be voting against this motion. Until Honourable and Rt Honourable members do not get their desired outcome in any referendum, they will continuously call for referendum after referendum.

Except once again you're twisting my words aren't you? Let's consider the following. Let's say that next term we're on the peripheries and we have a vote on the EU and choose to remain a member. What if, in the term after that, we suddenly join the euro and become an integral part of the EU giving up lots of sovereignty (it pains me to say all that)? Should the people not have a say on that proposal as well?

[eff01]

(Original post by toronto353)
Except once again you're twisting my words aren't you? Let's consider the following. Let's say that next term we're on the peripheries and we have a vote on the EU and choose to remain a member. What if, in the term after that, we suddenly join the euro and become an integral part of the EU giving up lots of sovereignty (it pains me to say all that)? Should the people not have a say on that proposal as well?

How I am twisting your words. I asked you a question, you gave an answer and I simply quoted what you had said. I'm not engaging in any 'theatrics'. Indeed if we were to join the Euro and a motion calling for a referendum on the issue happened, of course I would vote for a referendum but this is a very unlikely scenario. I disagree with this, we hold a referendum, we make changes to our relationship shortly after it, so lets hold another referendum. Unless the changes are substantial ie- joining the Euro, I see no reason for holding a referendum. And in any case if this House has made substantial changes to our relationship with Europe, then why haven't the people been consulted? You give examples of repatriation of powers, but if the mood of this forum is pro Europe, then why weren't the people consulted about this change?

A referendum was held less than two years ago, which is not a very long time (around 4ish Parliamentary terms), therefore I will be voting against this motion as it is completely unnecessary.

(I see you've edited your post..)

[toronto353]

(Original post by eff01)
How I am twisting your words. I asked you a question, you gave an answer and I simply quoted what you had said. I'm not engaging in any 'theatrics'. Indeed if we were to join the Euro and a motion calling for a referendum on the issue happened, of course I would vote for a referendum but this is a very unlikely scenario. I disagree with this, we hold a referendum, we make changes to our relationship shortly after it, so lets hold another referendum. Unless the changes are substantial ie- joining the Euro, I see no reason for holding a referendum. And in any case if this House has made substantial changes to our relationship with Europe, then why haven't the people been consulted? You give examples of repatriation of powers, but if the mood of this forum is pro Europe, then why weren't the people consulted about this change?

A referendum was held less than two years ago, which is not a very long time (around 4ish Parliamentary terms), therefore I will be voting against this motion as it is completely unnecessary.

(I see you've edited your post..)

I edited my post because you weren't engaging in theatrics and that isn't part of this debate. Given that argument then, we also didn't consult people over the canon amendment. Are you advocating that we either put all changes to our relationship with the EU to vote or none of them?

[Observatory]

I support the principle. However, in keeping with the spirit of the EU, I propose the bill be amended such that a referendum will be held every year until the populace votes to leave.

[barnetlad]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
It's not even about that, with VAT reduced below 15%, we're currently breaking the rules regarding EU membership, and we shouldn't even get a referendum on it. We should be kicked out.

I would not want us to be kicked out, as that would be the worst of all worlds.

[Observatory]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Except that we have the Canon amendment to allow us to override EU law

If that's the case, and model HoC can/has freely pass any law that violates the acquis communautaire, then the model UK has in effect already administratively withdrawn from the EU.

Can someone link the amendment?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Observatory)
If that's the case, and model HoC can/has freely pass any law that violates the acquis communautaire, then the model UK has in effect already administratively withdrawn from the EU.

Can someone link the amendment?

To an extent - we're still bound by all the stuff we haven't overridden and we're still bound to paying into the EU.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1346755

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
To an extent - we're still bound by all the stuff we haven't overridden and we're still bound to paying into the EU.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1346755

Unless we override that using a Bill.

[Morgsie]

Overrides takes place when there is a contradiction. Still got to abide Treaties, Directives and Regulations though

[Observatory]

While this may be seen as a small loss of realism with regards to the EU, it is in keeping with this House having not signed over powers to the EU

It sounds like model UK is considered to have never even joined the EU, in that case. Something of a dodge considering the RL UK has very little power to alter EU laws, short of leaving, which doesn't seem to be something the model HoC is willing to vote for.

otoh, not sure what this means -

I should point out that this means we are no longer restricted in the bills we can pass by EU laws, though we are restricted in the areas we can pass laws affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in, in the same way the RL House is restricted.

The RL HoC retains complete sovereignty over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and could arbitrarily circumscribe the powers of the assemblies, or abolish them outright, whenever it wants.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Overrides takes place when there is a contradiction. Still got to abide Treaties, Directives and Regulations though

Then what you do is to create a Bill which deliberately overrides EU law. The Canon Amendment kicks in and the Treaties etc are irrelevant.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by Observatory)
It sounds like model UK is considered to have never even joined the EU, in that case. Something of a dodge considering the RL UK has very little power to alter EU laws, short of leaving, which doesn't seem to be something the model HoC is willing to vote for.

otoh, not sure what this means -

The RL HoC retains complete sovereignty over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and could arbitrarily circumscribe the powers of the assemblies, or abolish them outright, whenever it wants.

No, the argument that we never ceded power to the EU is actually wrong. The Canon amendment clearly states that all prior leglislation passed is canon until overruled, thus the Lisbon Treaty and everything before are law. The euro-skeptics may not like it but the power was ceded and the UK is to be treat as a full member of the EU.

Whilst it technically could the reality is that that whilst Wales may roll over, Scotland would likely declare itself independent and go to the UN and EU were that to occur.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Rakas21)
No, the argument that we never ceded power to the EU is actually wrong. The Canon amendment clearly states that all prior leglislation passed is canon until overruled, thus the Lisbon Treaty and everything before are law. The euro-skeptics may not like it but the power was ceded and the UK is to be treat as a full member of the EU.

The EUsceptics surely love this amendment - in effect Britain is outside the EU, and obeys its laws only when it finds it convenient to do so, with no reduction of sovereignty. While seemingly assuming that we retain any advantages we wish to retain.

Whilst it technically could the reality is that that whilst Wales may roll over, Scotland would likely declare itself independent and go to the UN and EU were that to occur.

Who would, what, invade the UK?