EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[-:Undertaker:-]

that's nice but not what I was discussing

Because you've no answer to it.

You know legally and politically through EU membership this country is committed to further transfers of powers to the European Union and its courts.

It'd be like joining NATO and saying you don't want to go to war under any circumstances. Well then, NATO isn't the alliance for you then is it...

[The Don]

Because you've no answer to it.

You know legally and politically through EU membership this country is committed to further transfers of powers to the European Union and its courts.

It'd be like joining NATO and saying you don't want to go to war under any circumstances. Well then, NATO isn't the alliance for you then is it...

Well no, I do have an answer for it, we've had this debate before and it ends in you passing off illogical hypothetical scenarios as a definitive future outcome of continued eu membership (a mythical eurozone voting bloc, composed of states working against their own interests, outvoting us in parliament on hypothetical legislation which we hypothetically disagree with, forcing us to join a hypothetical federal europe).

Quite clearly the prime minister, and the EU, have said the UK is to receive an exemption from further political integration and any changes will result in a referendum.

I'm not going to reply to any hypothetical arguments you make based on conjecture, so if you want to respond to the point above (and want an answer), please explain with evidence why the prime minister is wrong when he says we've received an opt-out of political integration.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not going to reply to any hypothetical arguments you make based on conjecture, so if you want to respond to the point above (and want an answer), please explain with evidence why the prime minister is wrong when he says we've received an opt-out of political integration.

Because there have been no treaty revisions or structural changes to the courts of the European Union and the Commission. His renegotiation is worthless.

We've been here before hence why so many older voters are determined not to be fooled again as in 1975.

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973

That's what the Prime Minister of the day told us. It was just a trading arrangement we were told.

Here's what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (now declassified) was saying though behind our backs.

“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)

And in terms of supremacy of the law.

This country quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom by membership of the European Union … as a once sovereign power, we have said we want to be bound by Community law.

Judge Bruce Morgan, judgement in Sunderland metrication case April 9, 2001

[The Don]

Ah yes, the Prime Minister says no more powers to the EU so it must be true.



That's what the Prime Minister of the day told us. It was just a trading arrangement we were told.

Here's what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (now declassified) was saying though behind our backs.



And in terms of supremacy of the law.

The EU has said we've got an opt-out of further political integration. Your entire argument is based on the premise "people have lied in the past so they are lying now therefore we are gonna definitely end up in a federal eu", hardly a compelling argument. Tell me, in that case, using your own logic why should anyone believe a word that comes out of the leave campaign when we found out they were intentionally lying to the public over the 350m a week figure? According to Dan logic everything they come up with now is false because they lied about this figure.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The EU has said we've got an opt-out of further political integration. Your entire argument is based on the premise "people have lied in the past so they are lying now therefore we are gonna definitely end up in a federal eu", hardly a compelling argument. Tell me, in that case, using your own logic why should anyone believe a word that comes out of the leave campaign when we found out they were intentionally lying to the public over the 350m a week figure? According to Dan logic everything they come up with now is false because they lied about this figure.

The supposed opt-out has no legal standing what-so-ever.

Had the treaties been amended and structural changes been made then this claim would be plausible. EU Law doesn't operate on the basis of what Mr Cameron says to we the British public, it operates on the basis of what the treaties say and the principle of acquis and supremacy of European law over national law.

[The Don]

The supposed opt-out has no legal standing what-so-ever.

Had the treaties been amended and structural changes been made then this claim would be plausible. EU Law doesn't operate on the basis of what Mr Cameron says to we the British public, it operates on the basis of what the treaties say and the principle of acquis and supremacy of European law over national law.

Hasn't been amended yet, that doesn't mean we're going to be forced into more political union. The British public would riot if they recanted and forced us into a federal EU, it's simply not going to happen unless we agree with the further integration via referendum as has been promised.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hasn't been amended yet, that doesn't mean we're going to be forced into more political union.

If it hasn't been amended then it has no legal standing. The treaties are the cornerstone of the courts and EU law.

The British public would riot if they recanted and forced us into a federal EU, it's simply not going to happen unless we agree with the further integration via referendum as has been promised.

Really? I'd like to think we would but that's what we were promised in 1973 and since 1973 we've had huge swathes of powers transferred with the Single European Act (SEA), the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon. In 2015 the government, despite having a "referendum lock" opted into European Criminal and Justice competences which was a huge transfer of power without a mandate to do so.

I think if we do Remain then there will be another referendum by 2025. It begs the question, why vote to stay when we're going to have to Leave in the end?

[The Don]

If it hasn't been amended then it has no legal standing. The treaties are the cornerstone of the courts and EU law.



Really? I'd like to think we would but that's what we were promised in 1973 and since 1973 we've had huge swathes of powers transferred with the Single European Act (SEA), the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon. In 2015 the government, despite having a "referendum lock" opted into European Criminal and Justice competences which was a huge transfer of power without a mandate to do so.

As you said here:

by voting Remain you're committing this country to ever closer union and thus another inevitable referendum.

If they attempt more political union with the UK we'll get another referendum. Further political integration won't be happening unless we agree to it. Any claim otherwise is the stuff of conspiracy and on the same level as 9/11 being an inside job.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As you said here:

If they attempt more political union with the UK we'll get another referendum. Further political integration won't be happening unless we agree to it. Any claim otherwise is the stuff of conspiracy and on the same level as 9/11 being an inside job.

I think another referendum will be inevitable but by then they could have signed us up to all sorts of new European competences as they have done since 1975 without any referendums which will make it much harder for this country to extract itself from when we eventually leave. Each time they have signed us up to more after all, they've dressed it up as a "tidying up exercise" (Lisbon) or promised us opt-outs or "red lines" (Maastricht) which were later dropped faster than a hot potato. I really do not see the point in voting to Remain now and making it harder on ourselves, as well as making it harder by stalling our European partners who need to integrate in order to save their currency, only to have to undo all of this law and extract ourselves a mere ten years later.

What would be the point in that? May aswell accept now we're on divergent paths, wish them well, vote Leave and join the EEA or EFTA. A settled outcome.

[The Don]

There's been a swing in the polls in the favour of remain. This is going to be so close, have booked Thursday evening off to stay up for the results.