Pro and Anti EU - The Arguments - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14980749
fokker wrote:Departure of UK from the EU presents a historical opportunity for the EU to go through a major reform. There are many people who believe the EU in its current form is dying. It needs to take a bold step forward (just like its "glorious" predecessor Austria-Hungary when it declared war on Serbia) and introduce some major changes.

1. Contributions by EU member states are replaced by EU wide tax
2. European parliament is given full legislative powers and ideally have mid term elections, instead of all MPs being elected at once. Have power to initiate vote of no confidence in European commission.
3. Abolish council of ministers and have European Council (prime ministers) approve/veto legislation or initiate it if needed.

The EU will either survive it and work better or fall apart.


Those suggestions will need new treaties to be agreed by all EU member states.
I think close to half the member states would not agree to this.
The EU needs a bold step backwards, not forward.
#14980754
Ter wrote:Those suggestions will need new treaties to be agreed by all EU member states.
I think close to half the member states would not agree to this.
The EU needs a bold step backwards, not forward.


Actually you are semi-correct on this. Some treaties need to be renegotiated and corrected. For example the dublin treaty. Some reform do need to take place and i think nobody will object to them.

Although i kinda disagree with fokkers opinion that we need to transfer all power to the parliament and basically make 1 EU wide parliament instead of operating our national institutions. I do not think that is necessary right now or perhaps even at all. As cool as it sounds, our objective has never been to turn ourself in to a modern version of the US. We always fantasized EU being something like the earlier version of the US where the states actually had significantly more rights compared to the central government.

Your idea basically creates a very powerful central government to push through decisions faster while ignoring the fact that majority of the member do not want this centralization to happen.
#14980761
JohnRawls wrote:Actually you are semi-correct on this. Some treaties need to be renegotiated and corrected. For example the dublin treaty. Some reform do need to take place and i think nobody will object to them.


You mean because nobody even follows the rules anymore? :lol:

According to Dublin refugees must be registered in the country of entry, which of course didn't happen. Similarly, Schengen forbids border controls, yet many countries still have them years after the crisis. Then there's an ECJ ruling that says Hungary/Slovakia must accept refugee resettlement (it was decided by qualified majority after all), but to my knowledge Hungary just ignores that ruling.
#14980769
Rugoz wrote:You mean because nobody even follows the rules anymore? :lol:

According to Dublin refugees must be registered in the country of entry, which of course didn't happen. Similarly, Schengen forbids border controls, yet many countries still have them years after the crisis. Then there's an ECJ ruling that says Hungary/Slovakia must accept refugee resettlement (it was decided by qualified majority after all), but to my knowledge Hungary just ignores that ruling.


There are many flaws with the immigration policy right now. It was after all designed and created in a different time. So indeed, part of the problem is that the current state of Dublin treaty is unworkable and uneforceable. Actually unforcement shouldn't be much of an issue if the treaty is renegotiated to a workable state. It was after all created in 1990s and modified in 2003 i believe.
#14980873
National institutions would continue to function with unchanged powers. My suggestion eliminates power of unelected politicians (ministers) in the EU and moves it to elected ones (prime ministers) that can be more easily held accountable. By giving full legislative powers to EU parliament it allows the possibility of EU laws being abolished or simplified. European commission could also be more easily held accountable. I believe the EU cannot go backwards, it can only fall apart. The EU also needs more powers over national budgets (Greece, Italy?) otherwise some countries could easily pull the whole EU down without sufficient fiscal discipline.

If the EU continues in its current form its popularity will keep falling and the next major economic crisis coupled with migration crisis (due to world resources being gradually exhausted and prices rising) will cause its demise.
#14982625
fokker wrote:National institutions would continue to function with unchanged powers. My suggestion eliminates power of unelected politicians (ministers) in the EU and moves it to elected ones (prime ministers) that can be more easily held accountable. By giving full legislative powers to EU parliament it allows the possibility of EU laws being abolished or simplified. European commission could also be more easily held accountable. I believe the EU cannot go backwards, it can only fall apart. The EU also needs more powers over national budgets (Greece, Italy?) otherwise some countries could easily pull the whole EU down without sufficient fiscal discipline.

If the EU continues in its current form its popularity will keep falling and the next major economic crisis coupled with migration crisis (due to world resources being gradually exhausted and prices rising) will cause its demise.



I am not sure I am reading this right.
The EU council is the assembly of the 28 democratically elected Heads of state...ie President or Prime Minister.
They have one of the final says over proposed/draft legislation as written into the Lisbon Treaty...ie for trade deals and changes to the EU legal framework, there has to be 100% compliance.
Other matters need a QMV of 65%...ie 15% over first past the post.

Since Lisbon the EU parliament is the most powerful body in the EU and already holds the power to dismiss the Commission...it forced the entire Santer Commission to stand down . It also holds the power to approve all commissioners and nominate and approve the President of the Commission.

I would feel uncomfortable giving the EU powers over national budgets. There are already guidelines and sanctions available for those who break them.
The EU does not and IMO should not interfere with such fundamental national issues but instead, keep a watch in a mature, lighter touch. It should not become a heavy hand at the tiller...that is the way it will lose its members.

Apols I have read Fokker's quoted post incorrectly.
#14984024
I regard the, 'You don't know how the EU works', argument as a diversionary tactic, much the same as the financial argument. People don't have to know how cancer works to know it's a deadly infection that's difficult to get rid of. Whether the EU is more or less democratic than the UK seems irrelevant to its effect on the man in the street. In 2016, a majority of the 'man in the street' indicated that remaining a member of the EU does not suit them. They do not like how it's affecting their lives.

If a club's administration and rules, however fair and democratic they may be, do not suit a member, then that member's best course of action is to leave the club. That is what a majority of voters decided we should do in the EU referendum.

Research revealed that the UK's objections to EU measures was outvoted every time. This issue is mainly a matter of sovereignty rather than finance. The UK's voice is a minority of one in the EU club, logically the UK must accept EU decisions or leave.

Unfortunately the Express article, linked to below, does not identify the research group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"EVERY European Union measure to which the UK has formally objected since last year’s referendum vote has been passed into law, new research has shown."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... ge-britain
#14984026
Littaleng_Lander wrote:Research revealed that the UK's objections to EU measures was outvoted every time.


That is incorrect, research showed that the UK voted for 95% of all legislation passed in the EU, abstained for 3% of legislation and voted against only 2% of the times:

#14984036
Littaleng_Lander wrote:Research revealed that the UK's objections to EU measures was outvoted every time.
noemon wrote:That is false, research showed that the UK voted for 95% of all legislation passed in the EU, abstained for 3% of legislation and voted against only 2% of the times{snip}
The ratio of agreement to objection is not in question. The issue is the result of the UK's objections.

The UK objections were outvoted every time in that time period. In other words, measures that the UK considered were not in its interest were introduced anyway. Those measures were unlikely to have been instituted in this country if the UK had not been in the EU.

It seems better for the UK to be in charge of its own affairs rather than having to veto measures it doesn't want, and then get outvoted.
#14984038
Littaleng_Lander wrote:The ratio of agreement to objection is not in question.


Of course it is.

a) The UK has only voted against 2% of all EU legislation of all time.
b) The tabloid cites Vote Leave as its source without though pointing or mentioning the title of the "research" making it literally impossible to find.
c) it confuses abstaining with voting against and
d) it also confuses abstaining from 1 piece of legislation at different stages as 2 or 3 or more "votes" and it is only talking about after Brexit.

If you take all these into consideration, what this means is that the UK after Brexit has probably not bothered to show up at all for 2 or 3 legislation pieces and your tabloid is saying "abstaining is the same as voting against" and these 2 or 3 pieces of legislation have passed from 4 or 5 stages before coming into law, so it has counted that as 17 times since Brexit. Unless you provide evidence of which were the votes against and for how many pieces of legislation, this cannot be considered passable by any measure of the term.

minority of new Brussels directives and that EU voting records do not take account of the whole process of passing a measure into law


Translation, voting against the same legislation at different stages of its passing, does not count for 2 or 3 or 4 votes but as a single vote.

The UK objections were outvoted every time in that time period.


You mean in the time period after Brexit.

In other words, measures that the UK considered were not in its interest were introduced anyway. Those measures were unlikely to have been instituted in this country if the UK had not been in the EU.


Brexit means that the UK will no longer be in the EU, so why would anyone in the EU take into consideration the UK after it has initiated article 50?

It seems better for the UK to be in charge of its own affairs rather than having to veto measures it doesn't want, and then get outvoted.


Losing your sovereignty by having to abide by every single piece of EU legislation(as long as you trade with the EU) without having a say in them, is a loss of power for the UK. All countries that export into or import from the EU have to abide by EU legislation, even Samoa, Angola and the US.
#14984061
This is going round in circles now. There is as yet no 'after Brexit'. We haven't 'Brexited'.

The end result of the UK attempting to veto EU measures was that the UK got defeated by a majority of other EU members every time in the time period
mentioned. If the UK had not still been in the EU, it is unlikely those measures would have been on the table. That's the reality that no amount of sophistry can hide.

That's it! Readers can judge for themselves on the merits or otherwise of the messages already posted.
#14984122
Littaleng_Lander wrote:This is going round in circles now. There is as yet no 'after Brexit'. We haven't 'Brexited'.


Does that mean that your time-period does not actually exist? Or that it does not matter that the UK has abstained(not vetoed as you claim below) from EU legislation since initiating article 50 because clearly it sees no point whatsoever?

The end result of the UK attempting to veto EU measures was that the UK got defeated by a majority of other EU members every time in the time period
mentioned.


The UK did not veto anything after article 50 was initiated. Your statement is false.
#14984152
I never ‘worry’ about action, but only about inaction.

Churchill

It seems obvious Brexit is being derailed by ‘inaction’ and now attempts to prolong the inaction. You are being suckered by the globalists into giving their propaganda machine more time to indoctrinate you. It is embarrassing the descendants of Churchill’s time are afraid of an increase in the price of tomatoes.
Do it. You will be fine.
#14984153
One Degree wrote:You are being suckered by the globalists


Hey One Degree, can you please explain to me why trading under World Trade Organisation rules is less globalist than trading under EU rules in which national governments control the entire process from start to finish?
#14984159
noemon wrote:Hey One Degree, can you please explain to me why trading under World Trade Organisation rules is less globalist than trading under EU rules in which national governments control the entire process from start to finish?


No, I am not in favor of the WTO either.
#14984189
noemon wrote:Do you agree that the EU is less globalist than the WTO?


Sorry, but any difference is meaningless to me. You either support globalization (uniformity) or not. The degree of success at the moment does not matter if they have the same end goals. (I acknowledge you don’t agree they do)
However, in their current positions, I can see why you could argue the WTO is more globalist. The very idea of placing trade rules above the welfare of your own people is obviously global capitalism at it’s worst.
But, from my political view, such problems are irrelevant. The WTO is just the next thing to do away with and has no effect on Brexit.
#14984193
The WTO is what Brexiteers are openly hoping and begging to get once they leave the EU, also clearly not being in this country you are evidently not following Brexiteer news at all. The argument is that Europeans should not have advantages over Indian, African and Asian people in the UK. And that once Brexit happens, Britain should become more global by inviting not just Europeans but other peoples(from the aforementioned areas) and also by reducing corporate taxes, slashing welfare, privatising the NHS to global corporations and so on and forth.

Brexit is a globalist agenda supported openly by Rupert Murdoch, Dyson and very big global money.
#14984216
noemon wrote:The WTO is what Brexiteers are openly hoping and begging to get once they leave the EU, also clearly not being in this country you are evidently not following Brexiteer news at all. The argument is that Europeans should not have advantages over Indian, African and Asian people in the UK. And that once Brexit happens, Britain should become more global by inviting not just Europeans but other peoples(from the aforementioned areas) and also by reducing corporate taxes, slashing welfare, privatising the NHS to global corporations and so on and forth.

Brexit is a globalist agenda supported openly by Rupert Murdoch, Dyson and very big global money.


You are correct that I don’t follow it closely (other than reading the threads) and seldom comment on it because it is presumptuous to believe I understand it as well as those involved directly. I have no doubt the views are varied and some even contradictory. My input is for the same reason as supporting Trump, it is to encourage the best path to where I want the world to go. Overall, that seems Brexit even though I may not agree with every Brexiters reasons. I bet at least some of them have reasons aligned with mine. Once the path is set with Brexit, this should provide momentum for continuing down the path of greater autonomy.
#14984219
One Degree wrote: I have no doubt the views are varied and some even contradictory.


Not on the points I mentioned. The Brexit campaign and all main Brexiteer figures state those things openly, repeatedly.

My input is for the same reason as supporting Trump, it is to encourage the best path to where I want the world to go.


This is so vague that can mean anything you like.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 14

This inherent *oppression* is *real*, not imagin[…]

Reducing socialism to the national level always b[…]

Election 2020

There is nothing they can do to the US that would[…]

August 17, Saturday The Federal departments of […]