EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[-:Undertaker:-]

To further add to the post above, you paint the Swiss model as PERFECT. Just read the below

You can post as many pro-remain articles as you like but that still doesn't address my point or the fundamental below which it is time you answered.

The EU is heading towards political union and acquiring more powers, something that is unacceptable to the UK. Now, why can you yourself not accept this - unless you back it which you're thus far not telling us - and instead argue for something like membership of the EEA which gives you more or less the same Single Market access and open borders as we have now but without the power grabs from Brussels which will continue.

If you truly want the status quo with the SM but without any more powers to the Commission & Courts then you would be backing Leave for the EEA. Why not?

The above is self explanatory. You want to restrict our citizens opportunities? Then you are a fool.

You want to restrict oppotunities to this country. You're clinging to this outdated and failing 1950s trade bloc when the world is moving on. Move with it.

Our trade is moving to India, China, Malaysia and the far-east. Europe is shrinking. Why do you want to chain us to this increasingly small part of the world?

[abc]

The EU is heading towards political union and acquiring more powers, something that is unacceptable to the UK.

Please provide examples.

Are you in favour of or opposed to free movement of people?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please provide examples.

Oh not this again. I have provided countless quotes from Commissioners, treaties and reports from the EU itself saying this. I'll do it one more time.

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)


“Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”
(Treaty of Rome 1957)


“This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union…”
(Maastricht Treaty 1992)


The supremacy of Community Law when in conflict with national law is the logical consequence of the federal concept of the Community”
(H P Ipsen, 1964 – 9 years before we joined)


"The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions”.
(Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President September 2012)


“The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights… against which a subsequent act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail”
(ECJ Case 6/64)


“It is an illusion to think that [EU] states can hold on to their autonomy.”
(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank 1991)


“…we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.”
(Romano Prodi, President of EU Commission 1999)


“A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs.”
(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank, 1991)


“The [EU] Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas.”
(Jean-Claude Trichet, current head of the European Central Bank)


“One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement toward union of the European states”
(Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the EU Constitution 1997)


“The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe”
(Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank)

Here's the recent Five Presidents Report from autumn of 2015 on deepening the powers of the EU and here's a summary of it.

Now either you want a federal Europe and you stay in but if you do not then you must realise staying in is incompatible thus you pick the EEA, EFTA or other.

Are you in favour of or opposed to free movement of people?

Opposed as are the majority of the public, I believe in a controlled immigration system like Australia.

All major parties promised to control immigration. They can't because of EU law - how can that be in anyway right democratically?

[abc]

Oh not this again. I have provided countless quotes from Commissioners, treaties and reports from the EU itself saying this. I'll do it one more time.

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot you posted that earlier purely because it is crap. What I meant was post something.. you know... from this century? The one quote you have posted from this century, you are twisting the meaning of the President.

You posting all of those quotes is the same as me quoting some former king from 1700's who said slavery and child marriage is perfectly normal and should be allowed, and then using it to argue the pedophiles of today are doing nothing wrong. Delusional.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot you posted that earlier purely because it is crap. What I meant was post something.. you know... from this century? The one quote you have posted from this century, you are twisting the meaning of the President.

You posting all of those quotes is the same as me quoting some former king from 1700's who said slavery and child marriage is perfectly normal and should be allowed, and then using it to argue the pedophiles of today are doing nothing wrong. Delusional.

So the treaties, the legal cases, the remarks from the treaty writers, all the Commissioners, the 2015 autumn report calling for it... that's all "crap" then.

Merkel wants a federal Europe. The Italian Prime Minister has called for it. The current Commission President has called for it. All "crap" too I guess.

Intellectual denial so what's the point of debating it with you.

[The Don]

Dan once again spreading misinformation. The five presidents report mentions political union, but only in relation to those countries within the eurozone. Here's a quote directly from the report:

Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards
a genuine Economic Union that ensures each
economy has the structural features to prosper within
the Monetary Union. Second, towards a Financial
Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency
across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing
with the private sector. This means completing the
Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets
Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union 5
Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers
both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation.
And finally, towards a Political Union that provides
the foundation for all of the above through genuine
democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional
strengthening.
All four Unions depend on each other. Therefore, they
must develop in parallel and all euro area Member
States must participate in all Unions.

Pages 4-5 of the report.

Now Dan's going to write an essay on how the reports lying and we will in fact be forced into this despite the fact that the UK is not in the eurozone, and we've got the guarantee of not getting drawn into further political integration:

What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-35622105

Does it ever get tiring being wrong all the time Dan?

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don; well no actually this leads onto my next point which is what I was getting at.

Given we're not in the Eurozone, we'll increasingly be subjected to being outvoted even more so as the Eurozone is forced to vote as a coherant bloc. In short this would then mean being in a permanent voting minority unless we joined the Eurozone (not going to happen I am sure you will agree) and given the EU would ultimately transform itself into a federal political state rather than a customs/political/economic union then why do you advocate staying in when we can simply take the EEA option as Norway has done which would preserve the status quo on the Single Market and Freedom of Movement?

In other words, we're de facto on the way out as it transforms into a sovereign political state (as you admit) so why not leave now on our own terms?

[The Don]

@The Don; well no actually this leads onto my next point which is what I was getting at.

Given we're not in the Eurozone, we'll increasingly be subjected to being outvoted even more so as the Eurozone is forced to vote as a coherant bloc. In short this would then mean being in a permanent voting minority unless we joined the Eurozone (not going to happen I am sure you will agree) and given the EU would ultimately transform itself into a federal political state rather than a customs/political/economic union then why do you advocate staying in when we can simply take the EEA option as Norway has done which would preserve the status quo on the Single Market and Freedom of Movement?

In other words, we're de facto on the way out as it transforms into a sovereignty political state (as you admit) so why not leave now on our own terms?

This is all baseless conjecture. Firstly, you're falsely assuming all Eurozone countries automatically have identical and shared interests (outside of those relevant to the eurozone). France isn't going to side with Germany on an issue which is disadvantageous to France just to oppose the UK because “it’s not in the Eurozone!”. The only time you would get all eurozone members voting in a similar manner is when the legislation benefits all Eurozone members. The only time this would happen is when the legislation only affects Eurozone members i.e Euro legislation, which means this hypothetical voting bloc won’t affect the UK anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is all baseless conjecture. Firstly, you're falsely assuming all Eurozone countries automatically have identical and shared interests (outside of those relevant to the eurozone). France isn't going to side with Germany on an issue which is disadvantageous to France just to oppose the UK because “it’s not in the Eurozone!”. The only time you would get all eurozone members voting in a similar manner is when the legislation benefits all Eurozone members. The only time this would happen is when the legislation only affects Eurozone members i.e Euro legislation, which means this hypothetical voting bloc won’t affect the UK anyway.

Then you don't understand it as in the need of the Eurozone to act as one in the future in order to survive, as the report makes clear. In order to create these deeper unions for the Eurozone, they're going to have to vote together or else it won't work and they'll have to leave the Euro. That's the political reality of it. And Eurozone legislation will crossover (as it does now) into EU legislation hence why there isn't a separate European Commission for the Eurozone, or a separate parliament, or a separate Council of Ministers, or a separate Courts: nor are there any plans to do so. In essence, if Britain stays we'll be tying ourselves in closer and closer on a number of fronts with a project which is ultimately going to leave us as it becomes a state. How for example could Britain have Commissioners in the future without being in a federal Europe when the Commission would become the government of that federal state? It's incompatible. How can Britain possibly adhere to an ECJ of another sovereign state with a single legal system? It is impossible.

Given you accept it is moving towards political union and we are not, why not back leaving now on our own terms rather than have to leave in a decade or two?

[abc]

we can simply take the EEA option as Norway has done which would preserve the status quo on the Single Market and Freedom of Movement

Thought one of the things you hated the most about the EU was the freedom of movement / lack of border control? Now you are saying we should have Freedom of Movement?