Referendum Watch

Please persuade me to vote Yes OR No , what would be your arguements to vote either one and why should I vote Yes if that is your answer or No if that is your answer?

we should leave

democracy - the EU is undemocratic and whatever elected institutions that exist are merely protocols and rubber stamps. the UK should make its own laws, and not have 50% of them made by a non-UK institution. the executive (commission) of the EU is completely unelected and not accountable to anybody. it's an oligarchy. therefore, for the value of UK democracy to be protected, we ought to leave and be sovereign over our own nation and its laws.
economics - the EU stop the UK from making its own trade deals in its own interests. the EU sets up regulations that stop UK businesses more freely competing. the EU costs the UK £40 million a day. the EU has a massive incentive to freely trade with us just like it has an incentive to freely trade with the non-EU members turkey and iceland, and well as non-european countries like mexico and canada. therefore, there is good reason to suspect that, long-term, leaving the EU would make the UK more wealthy, and the only detriments that europhiles perceive are purely short-term.
immigration - the EU gives us absolutely no powers over european/EU-wide immigration. immigration in recent times is a massive issue and the EU is a huge contribution to why we cannot get numbers of immigrations, whom cause problems of housing, school places, unemployment, arguably social issues (etc) as a group (though are not necessarily a problem for welfare/NHS spending as some suggest).

The executive of the UK is completely unelected; it is appointed by the Queen.

The EU's executive is accountable to the European Parliament.

It does, but you don't free up trade by erecting hard borders between countries. Quite the opposite.

Given that we're all European citizens with free rights of movement, it's a bit like saying the UK denies the people of Suffolk the power to stop immigration from Norfolk.

except it's not unelected, is it? they need to have the confidence of an elected body, so that is, de facto, completely of a democratic nature. just because, procedurally, it is wrapped in traditions, it doesn't mean that we have a dictatorship in this country. you *can*, though, say that about the realities and the de facto situations in the EU. and by the way, don't assume that I'm totally fine with the democratic deficits of the UK (I'm a republican, for instance, for the sake of democracy) - I recognise that our democracy has a huge number of ways to improve, but the EU is the worst of all regarding democracy. the EU parliament is about as democratic as china's parliament.

no they're not. they're literally not. they have a ceremonial "election" of the leader of the EU parliament, but they aren't allowed to propose a new leader themselves so, again, it's ceremonial and means nothing.

our borders are permeable to trade though. people/immigrants might not be, but people =/= goods.

okay, this just takes the piss. this is the absolute worst fallacy I've ever encountered vis-a-vis discussions about whether we should remain or stay, and I am completely serious
-that's assuming that we already agree with the EU as a concept, which, concerning half the country at least, we DON'T. the people of suffolk consent to being in the UK - the UK doesn't necessarily consent to the EU's concept of european nationalism, and even if the UK voted "in" in june, it doen't mean they consent to this idea alone and in isolation - they may be voting for "in" for completely different reasons.

100% leave.

Personally my fave reason is that leaving the EU would leave us between £12-£20B per year better off, dependent on how many EU subsidies we decided to reproduce domestically.

With that money, we could give huge tax cuts/give to the NHS/buy working guns for the army/help some of the millions of refugees.

All other areas of government spending* are being tightly reviewed, and yet the enormous waste and corruption from Brussels sits there awkwardly.



*exc. MP's expenses of course.

No, executives in a parliamentary system (whether monarchy or republic) are typically not elected. That does not mean a country is not a democracy.

The point is the same checks and balances apply in the EU as in the UK. The European Commission is accountable to the European Parliament, and the European Parliament can effectively dismiss them.

What? There isn't a "leader" of the European Parliament, there's a President of the parliament who acts as a speaker. The approval of the Commission is quite different. This is a firm power, that has been exercised recently - in the collapse of the Santer Commission.

Trade is about more than the tariff-free movement of goods. Not having harmonised regulation harms trade, not having movement of people harms trade.

Except, of course, the people of Suffolk or Norfolk never had the choice...

States exercise a monopoly of force, they do not rule by actual consent. They are present, usually by historical accident. We don't cheerfully opt-in.

what do you mean executives? because the prime minister is "elected" via the confidence of parliament de facto and appointed by the queen de jure. do you mean senior civil servants? or government cabinet ministers? I think the former doesn't strictly need to be elected in that it is a position that acts as an agent to a secretary of state, whereas I actually do think ministers ought to be elected by parliament like in the USA and switzerland but what do you want me to conclude here? that this one problem invalidates our entire democratic system in comparison the the EU? what else could you be trying to say by bringing that up?

no. the EU parliament cannot propose legislation. it cannot amend legislation. and strictly speaking, the EU commission doesn't even need the EU parliament to pass new regulations. and no they cannot be dismissed. a commissioner is appointer by the PM of a respective member state and then the commissioners elect their president. that's got nothing to do with the parliament. the same applies to the president of the european council. regarding the EU parliament, the parliamentarians cannot propose a president, and that's hilarious because it's *their* institution. they can only say "yes" or "no". and saying no seems pretty redundant when they're not allowed to propose anybody else.

did I say leader? I didn't mean to - I meant president. I might have been saying that as an informal piece of language at the time, I didn't think you'd tell me off for it?

there's a difference between a harmonisation of certain regulations and free of movement, for example, and why do we need an EU commission in parallel to a harmonisation of regulations? why can't the EU parliament do that?

oh come on. give me a break. what do you expect suffolk to say in response to a question like that? "no"? is your concern for their formal consent really in proportion to their actual opinion being overwhelmingly one way or the other?

you're getting desperate here.

The thing about the executive branch of the UK government is that they are almost entirely elected (there might be a couple of lords as ministers), even if they are appointed to the specific position, something not true of the EU executive branch

Posted from TSR Mobile

If i were making the argument (the way i'm leaning right now) then i would argue that the lack of external borders and the attitude of Germany and its ilk is intolerable unless one desires a continent polluted by the third world (free movement should be between the people of Europe and other wealthy nations, not the poorest and least educated people in the world). I might also make the argument that the structure of both the EU and Euro-zone is extremely poor due to a combination of vested interest and a lack of resolve. Finally though i would argue that in the end, the UK will never join a Euro-zone federation (the end goal of the European project) and that we should therefore get out of their way and peruse our own closer relations with our brethren in the Anglosphere. I would also reference CAP, CFP and the net contribution.

If i were voting In i would argue that the EU is not significantly responsible for holding us back in economic terms, that our economy outpaces most of the G7 even with the apparent 'constraints' put upon it by Europe and that by being part of the EU, the UK can frame London as the financial capital of Europe and the UK as the doorway for Indian and Chinese firms and that in or out, we'll still have woes to deal with. I would also argue that based on current rates of both EU and non-EU immigration, the UK can enforce zero immigration tomorrow if it wished and i would therefore point out that it won't because of a lack of political will which will still be lacking should we leave. Essentially, i would argue that leaving the EU will change very little substantially. That the path will still be made of stone, not gold.

Democracy: the EU is not yet fully democratic because it has democratically been prevented from becoming so- this has gradually been changing and there is s growing movement for a fully democratic federal EU.

Sovereignty: Is a constructed concept much like the idea of 'freedom' that gets thrown about. If you look at economic independence we are too tied to global capitalism and that will never change.miliyarily we are tied up to NATO and this rely on the U.S. For much of our defence.

Can you think of any EU laws that negativity affect your day to day to life?



Economics: the EU is our biggest market and is right next to us. The brexit ers seem to think that the supposedly useless and irrational EU will bend over backwards to give us whatever we want. They make the SNP independence claims seem well thought out and reasonable. Additionally most of their claims are massively misrepresentative- Boris Johnson recently got torn to shreds at a select committee for numerous falsehoods made.

Foreign affairs: brexit ers say we should embrace the wider world. Yet every single country with which we have good relations wants the UK to stay in as well as the IMF, Bank of England and NATO.

Climate change: cannot be tackled in isolation and all environmental bodies support remaining. Numerous brexit groups have links to lobbying groups which advocate scrapping environmental regulation

Workers rights: The Thatcherites and Ukips are against workers protections and so called regulations which the EU upholds such as maternity leave or against greater standards for products.

Honesty: (ad hominem, but I do think think this is the case)

I am biased, and I do think that the In side overplays it a bit (the UK could survive outside the EU, just it won't do as well) but I have to say that in comparison to the Outers the In campaign are the definition of honesty and principle.

The out campaign are disingenuous, hypocritical charlatans and demagogues with very few exceptions (Gove). The clear reason for much of the Out campaign is to make the UK much more like the USA. When you look at people who advocate abolishing or selling off the NHS suddenly trying to make that a massive selling point for staying you lose s lot of respect for people. The In campaign is accused of project fear, yet whenever a there's s terrorist attack on Europe the bodies are still warm when the eurosceptics blame it on the EU (despite almost every incident involving domestic home grown extremists).

The PM isn't "elected" by parliament, either de facto or de jure. They are the person best placed to secure the confidence of the Commons. I mean no aspect of the executive is elected.

I think the conclusion is obvious: to complain that the European Commission is "unelected" is daft. It is an executive branch of government which, especially in Westminster-style democracies, are very often not elected at national level. You wouldn't expect it to be elected: it is, however, still accountable.

That's just inaccurate. The Parliament also has, in effect, greater powers over appointments to the Commission than the UK Parliament does over ministerial appointments. This was evident during the Barroso I commission, where the Parliament ensured certain Commissioner appointments were blocked. As I pointed out in my last post, the European Parliament has also caused Commissions to collapse.

Why you've brought legislation into this, I do not know - but the parliament has equal legislative authority with the council in the vast majority of areas. The parliament most certainly can amend legislation.

On the European Council point, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. The European Council is essentially the meeting of member-states. It was only given formal status in law with the Lisbon Treaty: it is, in essence, a formal summit once chaired rotationally, now chaired by someone selected by the members.

To be fair, you do have to be coherent in order to have a discussion. Anyway, if it did refer to the President of the European Parliament it's just wrong: the European Parliament nominates and elects its president from its own membership entirely independently.

Because a parliament doesn't actually do anything. It just creates laws. The European Commission implements them and, particularly in terms of regulatory frameworks, ensures that they are enforced and operating effectively. The parliament grants it a budget, it spends it.

You're wedded to what is essentially a fairly black-and-white form of nationalism. The problem with the EU that you have isn't that its "undemocratic" - in fact, the Eurosceptics would prefer it to be less democratic and more like an international organisation. It's just that you don't like it being there, and are willing to apply different standards to it than you do to "your own" government.

Political entities are not created by democratic means, they exist largely by historical accident. Britain, or England, or whatever else, are no more legitimate than the EU.

A fair point, but getting 39% of the vote in Little Fudgington-On-The-Wold hardly gives electoral legitimacy to holding a position of national authority.

There are, incidentally, many Lords who serve as Ministers. Certainly a lot more than a couple. The chief interest is that they are accountable and hold power only while they continue to have the confidence of the Commons.

I would disagree on those emboldened points. On the regulatory point, leaving would make little difference. Any company which operates within the EU has to abide by their regulations, meaning most companies have all their products comply with EU regulations such that they don't need to incur the cost of producing and marketing their product in 2 separate ways.

Given how much business takes place in the EU, the impact of leaving on regulation in real terms would be negligible. It would however mean the EU would lose a free-market voice calling for fewer regulations, and the regulations are likely to become more onerous if some of the more Southern countries have their way.

Also, I don't think you can confidently say that leaving the EU would make the UK more wealthy. There are so many uncertainties regarding what trade-agreement if any, would be brokered. Most commentators say the long-term impact could be anywhere from a slight economic boost in the most favourable situation, to a significant hit in the worst-case scenario.The only real certainty is that in the short-term the UK will be worse off from leaving.

Of the 33 cabinet ministers and others who attend cabinet the only Lord is the leader of the Lords and one minister in the others section.

27 ministers total are not MPs. The point still stands, all but 1 cabinet minister holds elected office, most ministers hold elected office, they do it all while holding the confidence of those in elected officials and under the democratic mandate of the general election victory for the government.

How much of that still stands with the EU, just the confidence, not that MEPs are given a great deal of choice in the matter.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The point has clearly shifted from ministers and those running the Government to cabinet-level ministers.

The election does not directly choose the Government. The sovereign does, based entirely on who is best able to command the confidence of the Commons. The British people, as a whole, didn't choose Liberal Democrats to govern them, but they did.

What I'm saying is that a local electoral contest does not confer national legitimacy. While the general election, taken as a whole, may give you the composition of the House of Commons, it does not appoint the Government. So too in the EU, the outcome of the European Parliament election will (indirectly) choose the presidency of the European Commission. We have an EPP-led Commission as the result of an EPP victory in a Europe-wide election.

Those running the government? Okay, now we're at an unelected position common among all polities, when did you last elect a civil servant?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I was speaking about Ministers. "Running" in the sense of "directing" rather than "administering".

they need to secure the confidence of a majority of MPs. if there is a majority, say, of conservative MPs, do you think they *wouldn't* have confidence in their own leader becoming PM? but either way, it looks like you're not justifying the EU here but rather trying to distract me and undermine the democracy of our own parliament - again - I am not trying to tell you that we have a particularly effective democracy. it's just that the EU is far worse. that's literally it.

no, literally, the "commission" itself, not the president of it, is not elected at all. the commission is the executive governing body here, and they happen to have a leader. the leader themselves is proposed by the council of ministers and then approved (not really elected) and rubber stamped by the EU parliament, seeing as they can't choose anybody other than whoever the council happen to put forward to them. and it's not like the EU parliament MEPs are going to put on their manifesto "we will elect _ as EU commission president" because they have *no idea* who will be proposed! that's different to the UK's parliament where there is a great deal of certainty and hence accountability. they can veto the choice of the council in theory but it will literally just be a back-and-forth game from there so they obviously don't do it. if it was an election, why doesn't the EU parliament get to propose its own candidate?! it's just like chinese democracy - you can only vote on who the government puts on your ballot paper.

look, again, I am not claiming that the UK democracy is fantastic and this is really just coming off as a strawman argument from you. it's the fact that not only is the EU remote and pools the voices of many different countries to make the voice of the UK substantially small in comparison to the UK, but the institutions are simply not enough to make it democratic. and those are some bold claims - if you give me a link to some evidence I'll read them

not really - while the EU parliament can *propose" amendments, they'd have to be redrafted into a bill by none other than (you guessed it) the EU commission. there is nothing that the EU parliament can do as an institution in this sense other than simply say "yes" or "no" to what the commission is giving them. they can't propose anything themselves as the elected body.

I personally don't even consider the council of ministers a democratic addition to the EU - it makes prime ministers effectively senators, but this shouldn't be their role in the EU - the only people who should make decisions in the EU should be those who have specifically been elected for the EU's institutions, not national leaders who have very vague and ambiguous beliefs/agendas that are therefore harder to scrutinise when they're mixed in with so many other variables.

sorry you're right about that fact, I forgot they (the EU parliament president) were elected by the EU parliament. but it's the fact that this seems to be so unexpected given the fact that literally every other major role in the EU isn't nominated by parliament at all. but I guess this is due to the fact that the EU parliament's president doesn't really make any powers. the EU parliament president is basically its speaker. they can elect their own speaker and nothing else in reality.

how does the EU commission "implement" these regulations, laws and provisions? I thought they left that to the member states? it's not as if the EU has its own police (or other comparative officials) with the duties of policy implementation. the only thing I'd credit the EU as having been able to "implement" would be court decisions via the ECJ, but that's not really implementation, seeing as when a decision is made, it's not the EU that implements it, but the countries themselves

international organisations aren't like states though. the EU is coming to a federal structure - it's a body where it has a government-esque institution (the commission), a bicameral "parliament" (the EU parliament and the council of ministers) and a supreme court (it also has a flag, an anthem, a foreign minister, a seat at the WTO, etc). how can you say that, for instance, the united nations is a federal body over states? there is no legally binding decision that they can make like the EU can. also, the EU's powers ought to be proportional to the means by which we can hold them to account. the UN's "powers", hence, proportionally, are appropriate.

again, this kind of remoteness in your thinking is very desperate and shallow - the UK might have arisen from a lack of democracy, but it *now* is somewhat of a democracy whereas *now* the EU is not. surely this is the only thing, in 2016, that we should be concerned with?!

Entirely false. The Council has to take account of the election result, which effectively means a nomination from the largest political bloc. The European political parties in turn name their lead candidate ("spitzenkandidat") for President of the Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker was the spitzenkandidat for the European People's Party and campaigned as such ahead of the last European Parliament election. He was literally on page 2 of their manifesto!

Even before this system, the parties were extensively consulted on the issue.

And in practice. As this has happened.

Now we're getting into the balance of powers here. In reality, in no parliamentary system will legislation have much of a chance of getting through without support of the executive. But what you've said about amendments having to originate with the Council isn't accurate.

The European Union operates essentially like a loose federation. In plenty of federal systems, regional governments have a role in the national legislature.

But as a general point, you've confused the Council of Ministers ("the Council") and the European Council there. They're two separate bodies, albeit confusingly named.

Which is why the Commission's staff is pretty small really. However they do still have a role crafting policy, administering funds, negotiating agreements and so on. Some do have more traditional implementation jobs - such as the humanitarian aid wing - while others are support functions (the largest directorate-general in the Commission is responsible for translation services).

The EU is unique. It is, by my reckoning, already a federation. Federalism is essentially running it as a democratic state, whereas running it as an international organisation like the UN simply makes it subject to the member-states rather than the people. The EU is a balance of the two principles.