BREXIT - leave or remain?

[Mehrunes]

The economic argument for staying is entirely logical and that was my primary concern, so that is what I based my evaluation on.

I do not give a shit about Polish people in the UK, all they do is open shops selling crappy food and fix our broken shit. My concern over immigration is more directed at those who want to bomb us, or try to escape laws by crying racism.

I know there are better cuisines than Polish one, but that coming from a UK citizen is like, I dunno, like complaints about EU being undemocratic coming from UK. The complainer is worse than the complained about in both cases.

[Gurluas]

So.... You're basically confirming that Norway have to adhere to EU laws in order to keep those trade agreements and that they have no actual say in the EU at all, Understood.

And yet the EU does not have any say in many of Norway's domestic laws. You should look at some of the laws the EU are doing, they are extremely sovereignty infringing.
Norway gets none of those whatsoever.

Neither would the UK.
And Schengen only applies to member citizens of the EU.
Meaning that the UK would have no problem locking it's borders from the illegal immigrants that are pouring in.
Sweden did it just fine.

[Noradin]

So the EU is democratic, but I didn't get a vote.

You got a vote from the EU, but your own (UK) government prevented you from using it.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure Norway doesn't pay anything to the EU budget, not sure why you think they would!!!

They pay for access to the EEA, which goes straight to the EU.

[Slant]

The other poster said that Merkel could authorise Germany to open their borders without the consent of the German Parliament, but I do not believe that our Prime Minister has that authority. I am not even sure he can legally close them unless in an emergency.

Authorising a border free-for-all that bypasses things like visa requirements seems beyond the powers of the Prime Minister and into Parliament territory.

This refugee crisis was an emergency of humanitarian issues. It all depends on interpretation and legal arguments. But by all means, different countries run differently. The UK may restrict the PM more than we restrict our Chancellor. And the US president is said to have even more direct control over executive actions. But the principle is the same all along, just in varying degrees.

[Deleted]

Thats disregarding the fact that we had 2 options : let them in and treat them like human beings or hold them at the border with no fast supply of food, drinking water or shelter.

The problem was that that momentary kindness sparked a fresh wave of misery - That then had to be stopped harshly.
by trying to do good, she actually made it worse.

[Kalis]

I know there are better cuisines than Polish one, but that coming from a UK citizen is like, I dunno, like complaints about EU being undemocratic coming from UK. The complainer is worse than the complained about in both cases.

British food is infinitely better than Polish food.

British food is on a par with the likes of Germany and the less bizzare crap they serve in Scandinavian countries, it gets a bad reputation due to comparisons with French food, but they are a bunch of poncey lah-di-da Gunner Grahams.

[Slant]

And yet the EU does not have any say in many of Norway's domestic laws. You should look at some of the laws the EU are doing, they are extremely sovereignty infringing.
Norway gets none of those whatsoever.

Neither would the UK.
And Schengen only applies to member citizens of the EU.
Meaning that the UK would have no problem locking it's borders from the illegal immigrants that are pouring in.
Sweden did it just fine.

Neither does it have any say in UK laws. Schengen applies to Norway as well, just so you know. And illegal immigrants don't care about borders or Schengen. And if you want access to the single market, you will accept to be part of Schengen. Otherwise you won't get a deal. Simple as that.

[Kalis]

You got a vote from the EU, but your own (UK) government prevented you from using it.

Not sure what you mean, we get to vote for MEPs.

[Deleted]

Really?

A source for that please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

Bottom of the European Economic Area section.

[Deleted]

Already found a source "The EEA countries that are not part of the EU do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership"

Yeah, they don't pay directly into the EU, they pay into the EEA, which then goes into the EU.

The total EEA EFTA commitment amounts to 2.4% of the overall EU programme budget

[Mehrunes]

Have you even followed some of the discussions in our Parliament? The British at least have a pretense of civil formality about all of it, our MP don't shy away from directly attacking Merkel on her stances. Or previous chancellors. And they do get a lot of direct criticism. Including things like using their executive authority (which they do have) to make decisions like opening up the borders for immigrants.

And then there's Polish parliament, where the government and the ruling party walk out of the room when the opposition talks because it hurts their feeble feelings :3

[Kalis]

But by all means, different countries run differently. The UK may restrict the PM more than we restrict our Chancellor. And the US president is said to have even more direct control over executive actions. But the principle is the same all along, just in varying degrees.

That degree of power was what I was trying to determine, I know the US President has more powers than our Prime Minister, but German political power for the Reichschancellor is unknown to me.

[Gurluas]

Neither does it have any say in UK laws. Schengen applies to Norway as well, just so you know. And illegal immigrants don't care about borders or Schengen. And if you want access to the single market, you will accept to be part of Schengen. Otherwise you won't get a deal. Simple as that.

You can still close your borders to illegal immigrants, like Sweden did.

[Slant]

Already found a source "The EEA countries that are not part of the EU do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership"

Instead, they bear the burden of paying a hefty amount in exchange for access to the EEA. Call it what you want, they're paying a shitton of money. The name of it doesn't really matter, does it? One is a membership fee, the other is an access fee. Both of them are quite substantial.

[Mehrunes]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...b0be24d34f5933

confirmed rigged. The floods alone prove that, damn MI5 and their pesky weather-weapons.

Weather-weapons? I smell Russian involvement. A new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this time aimed at UK?

[Dizzeeyooo]

I'm pretty sure Norway doesn't pay anything to the EU budget, not sure why you think they would!!!

http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financia.../#.V2wqdPkrKUl
rip your argument I guess

[Deleted]

You can still close your borders to illegal immigrants, like Sweden did.

We already do that in the UK, hence "the Jungle" in Calais.

[Slant]

You can still close your borders to illegal immigrants, like Sweden did.

Wtf? Everyone wants to close their borders to illegal immigrants. Within and outside Schengen. Are you just stating the obvious now? That Britain lets in illegal immigrants is on Britain alone, that's not the problem of the EU. The EU has its own share of illegal immigrants to deal with. And newsflash: they're illegal immigrants for a reason.

[ranzino]

Does Switzerland pay any such fees too ?