BREXIT - leave or remain?

[Tinch]

So....how is this a undemocratic appointment?

So because the PM is elected, appointing someone to the House of Lords would be considered deomocratic now would it?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[ati87]

So because the PM is elected, appointing someone to the House of Lords would be considered deomocratic now would it?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

pretty sure we have allot of unapointed people in any government.

Do you vote for members of the cabinet? Example did people vote for Clinton and her secretary of state position?

[Slant]

You called me a liar and told me you were going to quote me to prove it, when I called you out on it you went silent.

Can the UK choose who and how many people enter this country? No, that's a reduction in our sovereignty.

Does EU law have supremacy over UK law? Yes, that's a reduction in our sovereignty.

You can't just make a blanket statement that we have sovereignty or that we don't, it depends which area we're talking about.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...mmigration_law

The UK controls immigration from ROW and commonwealth countries independantly from the EU and it has exerted its control in the legislative bodies of the EU as well as far as EU migrations goes. So no reduction in sovereignity.
EU law has supremacy over UK law only as much as the UK has agreed to such supremacy. That is a sign of sovereignity. It's a choice that the UK wasn't forced to.

The UK is a sovereign nation. That it chooses to give up authority over certain issues doesn't mean it can't just close its borders hermetically if it chooses to.

[Mayhem]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...mmigration_law

The UK controls immigration from ROW and commonwealth countries independantly from the EU and it has exerted its control in the legislative bodies of the EU as well as far as EU migrations goes. So no reduction in sovereignity.
EU law has supremacy over UK law only as much as the UK has agreed to such supremacy. That is a sign of sovereignity. It's a choice that the UK wasn't forced to.

The UK is a sovereign nation. That it chooses to give up authority over certain issues doesn't mean it can't just close its borders hermetically if it chooses to.

"I don´t want to live with the choices i made earlier, let me be free and make my own choices!"

[Deleted]

You called me a liar and told me you were going to quote me to prove it, when I called you out on it you went silent.

Can the UK choose who and how many people enter this country? No, that's a reduction in our sovereignty.

Does EU law have supremacy over UK law? Yes, that's a reduction in our sovereignty.

You can't just make a blanket statement that we have sovereignty or that we don't, it depends which area we're talking about.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, it can (every country have the right to shut down the borders by various reason from 10 days up to 2 years... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13194723

"Under the Schengen rules, signatories may reinstate internal border controls for 10 days, if this has to be done immediately for "public policy or national security" reasons.
If the problem continues, the controls can be maintained for "renewable periods" of up to 20 days and for a maximum of two months.
The period is longer in cases where the threat is considered "foreseeable". The controls can be maintained for renewable periods of up to 30 days, and for a maximum of six months.
An extension of two years maximum is allowed under Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code, in "exceptional circumstances"."

Partially...http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/do...e-over-uk-law/

"The Court of Justice does not, however, have any power to strike down national law; this is a task for the national courts. The national courts will, however, seek to resolve the conflict through interpretation. But UK courts are required not to enforce UK laws to the extent that they are incompatible with EU obligations."

However..did you realised England have it`s own currency, own traffic rules, own measuring system? Sovereignty my ass..you guys just a bunch of pampered and spoiled brats without any relevant knowledge, not just about the World or EU but your own country...Still dreaming about the time when UK was a great empire, blaming the EU, the stars, the UFOs basically everybody except yourself if your life is unsuccessful. ("immigrants take my jobs"..Do youwant non-eu immigrants? Are they better? The answer is yes and I tell you why..you guys are racist...not on the surface but deeply inside..and you can see immediately on a person from India or Pakistan, he is a "lower lifeform" but you can`t do the same with an Eastern European as they looks like you..Just an hour ago as I walked in Victoria station, London and spoke with my sister in a foreign language 2 guys came nearby and shouted to me "fuck immigrant"...2016 UK, London...I hope they should do with tourists as well and the tourism cease to exists in UK...Are you proud?

[Altariaz]

It's elected by the European Parliament actually. Just like UK cabinet is elected by UK Parliament. And the EC is now EU's lawmaker.

EU Commissioners are NOT elected. They are appointed. One is nominated by each EU member state to serve for a 5 year term. Further, it is not possible to hold an individual commissioner to account: The cheese bags are all ‘collectively accountable’, which makes dismissing a crap one impossible. Please get your facts straight before you post.

[Mehrunes]

EU Commissioners are NOT elected. They are appointed. One is nominated by each EU member state to serve for a 5 year term. Further, it is not possible to hold an individual commissioner to account: The cheese bags are all ‘collectively accountable’, which makes dismissing a crap one impossible. Please get your facts straight before you post.

And what happens after the nominations? Because nomination itself means squat. Oh, that's right, they are elected by the European Parliament. Wikipedia entry:

The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners").[4] There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council[5] and elected by the European Parliament.[6] The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[7] The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014.

And what about the inability to dismiss an individual Commissioner? Works that way in Germany too. The sky is not falling there. The President of the European Parliament can request the resignation of an individual Commissioner and when it comes to that it usually goes through. And in case of a breach of obligations the Council of the European Union or European Commission itself may request an individual Commissioner to retire.

[Deleted]

EU member states are sovereign. And EU law being above national law isn't anything new or unique. Internaltional law is above national law in many, many cases. And countries agreeing to that for the benefits of unified legal frameworks and other boons coming from membership in the organizations that passed these laws is an aspect of sovereignty.

Got a new goal for UKIP - They need to work for a referendum on leaving the UN - It's a multinational union, with clear notions of a 'one world state' - They have a court, and their 'constitution' is apparently binding for everyone everywhere - Leave the UN at once!

- - - Updated - - -

Each member state.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Not an EU problem - If you want them to be elected, all you have to do is make it so that the UK holds and election for the commissioner - Its up to you to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

So....how is this a undemocratic appointment?

because David Cameron is a dictator, so his appointees are undemocratic of course.

[Tinch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...mmigration_law

The UK controls immigration from ROW and commonwealth countries independantly from the EU and it has exerted its control in the legislative bodies of the EU as well as far as EU migrations goes. So no reduction in sovereignity.
EU law has supremacy over UK law only as much as the UK has agreed to such supremacy. That is a sign of sovereignity. It's a choice that the UK wasn't forced to.

The UK is a sovereign nation. That it chooses to give up authority over certain issues doesn't mean it can't just close its borders hermetically if it chooses to.

You see how you could simply say the UK controls immigration from the ROW, but couldn't say the same for the EU? Because you know we don't have any. David Cameron wanted to negotiate changes to freedom of movement but as you've said it yourself, the EU believes that EU membership and freedom of movement are inextricably linked.

As much as he wanted to, the UK Prime Minister could not make the changes he wanted to make, it is an undeniable fact that the UK does not have sovereignty when it comes to the issue of EU migration.

[Mehrunes]

Can the UK choose who and how many people enter this country? No, that's a reduction in our sovereignty.

Does EU law have supremacy over UK law? Yes, that's a reduction in our sovereignty.

EU willingly accepted both of these things.

[Tinch]

Snip

I was going to make a proper response to this, but i'm not going to engage with someone who instantly tries to brand anyone who voted leave as a racist, stop being a child.

I'm sorry to hear you were attacked like that, but how the fuck am I or any other leave vote responsible, and why the fuck would I be proud of it?

[Slant]

You see how you could simply say the UK controls immigration from the ROW, but couldn't say the same for the EU? Because you know we don't have any. David Cameron wanted to negotiate changes to freedom of movement but as you've said it yourself, the EU believes that EU membership and freedom of movement are inextricably linked.

As much as he wanted to, the UK Prime Minister could not make the changes he wanted to make, it is an undeniable fact that the UK does not have sovereignty when it comes to the issue of EU migration.

This is by choice of the UK. See, the beauty of the EU and really the fallacy of your entire base of arguments is this: At every step of the way, the UK was asked "Do you want this?" and every single time the UK said "Yes, this is what we want!"

At every single step. There is not one bit of EU policy, not one bit of EU legislation that wasn't confirmed by your Government one way (through ratification in Parliament) or the other (through intentional passing of authority from the UK Government to the EU).

I like these discussions, because they make me refine the arguments. So keep it up, but I fear the more you talk about it, the more compact my argument becomes. You can negotiate changes anytime you like. And the UK has gotten all of their special deals because they negotiated them.

The EU doesn't just believe those two are linked. They ARE. By the nature of things. As it stands, the EU doesn't even see how it has a choice not to link them. There are many things that simply prevent this from happening. A company like BMW bought Bentley. They didn't do this because they thought the British ran Bentley terribly well. Mostly, because the British didn't. They bought Bentley because they thought it was cheap, a good investment and because they thought they could run it better. This means they are sending a staff of managers over to teach the British how to run a car company. This necessitates freedom of movement and being able to work in the UK, because you cannot run a company with work visas that are limited to 6 months.

Expertise is a type of wares that needs to pass borders just like a crate of engine parts. Especially in the modern world, where Europe and the rest of the major players are beginning to move away from manufacturing and move onto service sectors, this becomes more prominent. When knowledge and skill becomes the trade goods, you need people to be able to move and apply their skillsets where its needed.

And what you don't seem to get, and I'll try to put this very clear for you: Whatever happens to the UK with regards to the EU is happening to them because they want it to happen. It's never the EU forcing them, it's always the EU saying this needs to happen and the UK saying I agree, it needs to happen.

The simple fact that you can actually hold such a dumbass referendum and leave the EU and don't actually do it but let everyone hold their breath while you lot make up your mind what you actually want... that alone is proof that you are a sovereign nation that can be as comical as it wants to be. And nothing the EU says or does can change that it's you deciding what's going to happen to you.

At no point in EU history have you been forced to do anything. How about you cut that bullshit and present us with a more interesting argument, because "Duh sovereignity" is getting rather old and is plainly just too simple to disprove by just looking at the circus that's going on in the UK right now.

[Mehrunes]

You see how you could simply say the UK controls immigration from the ROW, but couldn't say the same for the EU? Because you know we don't have any. David Cameron wanted to negotiate changes to freedom of movement but as you've said it yourself, the EU believes that EU membership and freedom of movement are inextricably linked.

As much as he wanted to, the UK Prime Minister could not make the changes he wanted to make, it is an undeniable fact that the UK does not have sovereignty when it comes to the issue of EU migration.

EU can't cherry-pick the fundamental aspects of international organizations they are members of? Ze horror! Obviously EU should bend over and given them special privileges (they already did, but not in such fundamental areas)? Worse yet, they can't single-handedly make such changes to the EU? Damn dictatorial EU not respecting ze mighty empire! Never-mind that UK agreed to that. Pacta sunt servanda and all that basic international law stuff. How inconvenient... And the cherry on top is that Brexit won't change it anyway.

[Tinch]

because David Cameron is a dictator, so his appointees are undemocratic of course.

So I'll ask you the same question, if you think the appointing of EU Commissioners is democratic, then you must believe the method of appointment for the House of Lords is democratic too then?

[Dhrizzle]

Why not? - Seriously i have never heard a compelling reason against it, its just presumed.

A friend of mine is opposed to the idea of being part of a European super-power. He doesn't think that British sovereignty is such a great thing, or that the bureaucracy of Brussels is particularly bad, but he doesn't like the idea of being part of a political entity with that much power.

[Mehrunes]

Got a new goal for UKIP - They need to work for a referendum on leaving the UN - It's a multinational union, with clear notions of a 'one world state' - They have a court, and their 'constitution' is apparently binding for everyone everywhere - Leave the UN at once!

Even worse, UNSC can legally fuck UK up more than EU ever could. Then again UK has a permanent seat on it. A dilemma. On one way, UN is obviously a dictatorship. On the other, UK has disproportional representation there which they adore (proportional representation giving power to small countries and preventing ze rise of ze empire is their main grievance with the EU after all). What to do, what to do...

[Slant]

So I'll ask you the same question, if you think the appointing of EU Commissioners is democratic, then you must believe the method of appointment for the House of Lords is democratic too then?

Are they confirmed by the House of Commons? If not, I don't see how you can pull up this analogy.

- - - Updated - - -

A friend of mine is opposed to the idea of being part of a European super-power. He doesn't think that British sovereignty is such a great thing, or that the bureaucracy of Brussels is particularly bad, but he doesn't like the idea of being part of a political entity with that much power.

This is actually one of the better arguments, @Tinch are you watching this? This is what an actual, original thought looks like.

I'd like to point out that the US has such power and the EU is becoming a natural counterbalance. That wasn't the intention, but I'd say it's a good thing that our usual moderate views can balance the US a bit. Perhaps in the future we might be able to reel them in before they destabilise regions.

[Mehrunes]

A friend of mine is opposed to the idea of being part of a European super-power. He doesn't think that British sovereignty is such a great thing, or that the bureaucracy of Brussels is particularly bad, but he doesn't like the idea of being part of a political entity with that much power.

Like the UK which has the anti-thesis of small government? Unless the problem is the area in square kilometers that is controlled by said power, but the scope of it seems to be the bigger issue here.

[Slant]

Even worse, UNSC can legally fuck UK up more than EU ever could. Then again UK has a permanent seat on it. A dilemma. On one way, UN is obviously a dictatorship. On the other, UK has disproportional representation there which they adore (proportional representation giving power to small countries and preventing ze rise of ze empire is their main grievance with the EU after all). What to do, what to do...

Germany is doing its 8 year cycle application for 2018 and we are going to lobby for a permanent seat again. I wonder when we'll learn that they'll never give a permanent seat to the nation that was the reason the council was implemented for...

Bit ironic.

[Deleted]

it is an undeniable fact that the UK does not have sovereignty when it comes to the issue of EU migration.

No see if you were not sovereign, you would not have the option of leaving.

- - - Updated - - -

So I'll ask you the same question, if you think the appointing of EU Commissioners is democratic, then you must believe the method of appointment for the House of Lords is democratic too then?

The commissioner is an executive appointment, the house of lords a parliamentary one.

- - - Updated - - -

Germany is doing its 8 year cycle application for 2018 and we are going to lobby for a permanent seat again. I wonder when we'll learn that they'll never give a permanent seat to the nation that was the reason the council was implemented for...

Bit ironic.

The reason that Germany wont ever get a permanent seat is the same reason that Brazil and India wont get one, it keeps the old powers happy, and the new powers out of the loop - its a US supremacy thing.