Eu: In or out?

Three is easy enough: ports services

Common fisheries policy

Tobacco Products Directive

UK government neither opposed nor supported

The reason it's so disproportionate is not so the smaller countries themselves get more say and aren't drowned out, it's because each country vote for their own parties rather than Europe wide parties.

751 is the capacity of the parliament

And we got just a couple of months ago the Ports Services Regulation passed. 451 voted in favour, 243 against, include all 73 of our MEPs and a lot of our allies who have been arguing for an amendment to exempt British ports ever since it was first put to the parliament. This is also a regulation that will be highly damaging the industry in Britain

Posted from TSR Mobile

Three is easy enough: ports services regulation
Common fisheries policy
Tobacco Products Directive

Firstly Europe wide parties are national parties the Europe wide parties are made up of the national parties for example Labour is part of the European party Socialist and Democrats (S&D) therefore its irrelevant if you vote for a national party or not as each national party is affiliated to a European one. Even UKIP is a part of the Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe (ADDE). So people voting for national parties has nothing do to with that parliament being slightly disproportionate. Instead I think that It is actually to prevent smaller states being irrelevant (as some countries don't have enough of a population to even get 1 MEP (if my numbers were right then malta should get about 0.5 or 0.6)) and you could just ignore the smaller states. Also upon reading the wiki for "apportionment in european parliament" it mentions this:
"... the smaller states (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) were concerned about being underrepresented and hence they were granted more seats than their population would have allowed."
The system is meant to give less MEPs to larger countries and more to smaller as the seats are distributed "degressively proportional" and it mentions this in the Treaties.

As for the ports services regulation, I checked how our MEPS voted using this site: (http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-market-access-to-port-services-and-financial-transparency-of-ports-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-2.html) and 1 of our MEPS voted in favour and 7 were absent or chose not to vote. However out MEPs did vote overwhelmingly to reject it so I took a look at how other countries voted in total, (Also who are our allies exactly?) the only ones to reject the proposal other than us were: Poland and spain (with cyprus being 50/50). Our usual allies I suspect are the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. They voted as such: (For:Against) 17:7 9:1 14:2 10:1 respectively. So the EU parliament did as it should pass bills that it sees as the best for the common good of the EU as a whole and not a particular nation. Looking into this regulation I found that the reason it's is believed that it will have a negative impact on our ports and not continental ports is due to the fact that many of our own ports a privately owned whereas continental ports tend to be state/council owned. So even if this will have a negative impact (I couldn't find anything telling me that it would be highly damaging (I couldn't find any figures and got bored while researching this)) we're just gonna have to deal with it if it's going to have a positive impact on the rest of the EU. Plus one bill that we vote overwhelmingly against will happen from time to time but it is quite rare I believe we can't just have every thing that we like about the EU and reject every negative. (was gonna type some more but I reckon my post is long enough)

The Common Fisheries Policy is a convenient scapegoat. Fish populations were steadily declining for more than half a century before the EU existed. At the very worst, the CFP brought forward the inevitable by a few years. I'd say they more than made up for it with the environmental protections implemented. The CFP is the sole reason that fish populations are going to be able to recover. I don't understand what people would prefer - scrap the quotas and fish them all into extinction, like we were on course to do before the CFP was implemented? That'd do wonders for our fishing industry....

No, my objection is to changing from self government to being governed within a megastate!

Of course I don't want to get more involved with the EU, being in the EEC was easily far enough. There are too many cultural and commercial differences: they dont have Common Law, many EU states don't have Juries, they dont have the tradition of fairness that Common Law and Juries have engendered, many states have family structures that lead to corruption and nepotism, their police are routinely armed, few countries have the attachment of the British to the landscape, they dont have a long term tradition of trading across the world, they have financial regulations that are not suited to a country that is the centre of world finance to name a few... Of course you can take each one in turn and deride it or minimise its importance but the UK has a decent culture and should preserve it (I like the differences and would happily wax lyrical about French culture in the same way).

The cultural and commercial differences pale into insignificance compared with the absurdity of believing that Croatians, Spaniards and Poles really understand what is good for Londoners or Cornish people. The sensible way for sovereign states to interact is like the EEC, with all states having a veto. The EU, government from Brussels, is a nightmare.

"Yeah dude it's okay if the bullies take that kid's lunch money, it's for the best. This way, everyone has a little extra money. Never mind the poor kid."

Firstly, I put forward a few arguments on different topics so if you're gonna quote me please remove the bits that aren't relevant.

Secondly, In no way are we being bullied. In the parliament our MEP's have been in the minority about 12% of the time (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662422/EU-referendum-Brexit-Britain-outvoted-EU-Council-VoteWatch-Europe-study-MEPs) since 2009 and since 2004 we have agreed with them 71% of the time so while yes we are most likely country to be outvoted, most of the time we're on the winning side.

It isn't about the stuff we do like passing, because we could pass that stuff ourselves, outside of the EU.
It's the stuff we don't like passing that is important.

"Who cares if you have to eat cyanide every 10 meals, don't you enjoy the meals in between?"

holy

****

okay, I've had enough of ****ing remainers not understand exactly how the CFP ****ed the UK fishing industry.

we're going to explain this with ****ing crayons because you need something you're familiar with

Here's the total fish resources in the UK's waters.



Now, we can't fish all of those, otherwise they'd die out. So we only fish this many.



If this was all the CFP was, we wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, it grants THE REST OF THE EU access to these fish stocks, and limits how many of OUR fish we're allowed to take for ourselves. So the EU nations take the top part, we get left with the bottom.



This is what has ruined the fishing industry.

You're right we can pass things ourselves. The Issue is our government is not fairly elected (37% of the vote equals a majority government) and so they end up passing laws that the british people don't want either. Just because the EU sometimes passes stuff we don't want isn't that good a reason to just leave otherwise I'll use the arguement that the North of England should declare independence because the British government sometimes passes laws we don't want.

But the UK gets by far the largest proportion of haddock, cod, lemon sole, and mackerel.

No, the effects of quotas by country are VERY, VERY exaggerated. We could leave the EU today and take 100% of the fish in our waters, but you'd find that we're still getting no fish, because fish stocks are depleted. Fish populations have been in decline for the last 120 years, it just so happened that the British fishing industry started to feel the effects around the time CFP was introduced. It's more coincidence than anything.

Leave the EU, demand a referendum on PR, we'll either get it before the next GE or we'll get it as a result of the next GE as every party promises it in order to win votes.
This is how democracy works.



If we pulled out of the EU, would we gain access to 100% of our sustainable catch? Yes or no?

Yes.

But 100% of a very small number is still a very small number. Fish stocks have declined 94% in the last 100 years. The fishing industry is ****ed until the populations recover.

Can't think of a single argument for remaining. The handling of the migrant crisis, immigration, Ukraine, ISIL security, multinational corporations, manufacturing and the euro in general should be enough to convince any sane person that we shouldn't be governed by an elite in Brussels...

This is what has ruined the fishing industry.

We have 30% of the EU fish quota and 13% of the seas.

in which nulli tertius fails to understand that some area is richer than others because it's a better habitat

Antarctica is massive, why isn't it literally COVERED in animals?

arts students smh