EU membership referendum debate thread

[Little John]

In the case of the referendum, where it was clear before the vote, the result would be decided by a simple majority. In that case the MP's should vote to ratify the referendum result. It may not be the best, but it's all you've got.

Lest anyone should think the negotiations will be sorted in detail in two years, they should remember it took 40 years to get to where we are. It will take a long time to undo it.

Which part of this is it difficult to understand:

1. We are leaving the EU and will not be sending them any more money;

2. We won't put any tariffs or barriers on their goods and services unless and until they put tariffs on ours;

3. We will cooperate fully with them on police intelligence and anti-terrorism issues as we did before 1973;

4. We will decide who can live & work in our country as they must do in theirs. We don't intend to expell any EU citizen already here;

5. Henceforth our own courts and parliament will be supreme in our country;

6. Subject to the result of parliamentary elections, (that little thing called democracy again) we intend to at least match best practice in the EU on workers rights environmental protection and liberties.

Farewell.

[woodburner]

That was George Galloway's suggestion, or is your record stuck?

[johnhemming2]

None of it is difficult to understand. However, it is not grounded in reality.

Let us take, for example, the International Criminal Court which is intended to prosecute war crimes - are we leaving that agreement which acts as a supervisory appellate structure to our judicial system. Similarly the European Court of Human Rights acts as a supervisory structure with a system of remedies.

I have a personal interest in the Aarhus Convention Compliance COmmittee which decided a week ago that my complaint against the UK was preliminarily admissible.

There is, of course, the issue of what financial commitments the EU has towards people and organisations in the UK. It has to be seen as reasonable for the UK to fund those as is appropriate.

Additionally, of course, there is the Eurovision Song Contest - which we are not leaving.

[Little John]

None of it is difficult to understand. However, it is not grounded in reality.

Let us take, for example, the International Criminal Court which is intended to prosecute war crimes - are we leaving that agreement which acts as a supervisory appellate structure to our judicial system. Similarly the European Court of Human Rights acts as a supervisory structure with a system of remedies.

I have a personal interest in the Aarhus Convention Compliance COmmittee which decided a week ago that my complaint against the UK was preliminarily admissible.

There is, of course, the issue of what financial commitments the EU has towards people and organisations in the UK. It has to be seen as reasonable for the UK to fund those as is appropriate.

Additionally, of course, there is the Eurovision Song Contest - which we are not leaving.

So, how do those countries not in the EU manage their dealings with the international criminal court?

Regarding the Europen Court of Huyman Rights, this is an EU structure and that is what we are leaving. So, your point is? On the other hand, if it is not an EU structure, then again, your point is?

I have no interest in your dealing with the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee

In terms of what financial commitments the EU has towards people and organizations in the UK, following Brexit and that these will no longer apply - again, your point is?

[Little John]

That was George Galloway's suggestion, or is your record stuck?

You have yet to explain why you think they are so impossible to implement.

[johnhemming2]

Regarding the Europen Court of Huyman Rights, this is an EU structure and that is what we are leaving. So, your point is? On the other hand, if it is not an EU structure, then again, your point is?

My point is that you are unaware of what reality is. Hence the fact that what you say is almost complete garbage is not surprising.

The point about the ECtHR is a good example. The European Court of Human Rights is governed by the Council of Europe and hence leaving the EU will have no effect on this.

We will, however, continue to be bound by this. Hence your list of points - which may be from George Galloway - are wrong.

[Little John]

Regarding the Europen Court of Huyman Rights, this is an EU structure and that is what we are leaving. So, your point is? On the other hand, if it is not an EU structure, then again, your point is?

My point is that you are unaware of what reality is. Hence the fact that what you say is almost complete garbage is not surprising.

The point about the ECtHR is a good example. The European Court of Human Rights is governed by the Council of Europe and hence leaving the EU will have no effect on this.

We will, however, continue to be bound by this. Hence your list of points - which may be from George Galloway - are wrong.

Will we? Why? If the European court of human rights is governed by the Council of Europe and the council of Europe is, for the sake of argument, an EU institution (which it is not, though the two are inextricably intertwined)) then, defacto, we should consider ourselves to be no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Europe Rights. The one logically follows from the other. Barring the anti-democrats (temporarily) winning the day, we are leaving the EU. This means what is says. We are leaving the EU and all jurisdiction rulings of the EU, as they relate to the enactment and expression of this country's sovereignty over its own internal affairs and so will be null and void from that point onwards.

On the other hand, if the Council of Europe is not an EU institution (which it is not) then, again, your point is? As a sovereign nation we can choose to subscribe to the jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights or not, or even remain a member of the European Council or not, as the sovereign democratic case may be. Things that are all but impossible to make a decision about while remaining a member of the EU, given the (very likely deliberate) vagaries of existing EU treaties and the convoluted, intertwined relationship between the EU and Council of Europe. In other words, the above issue does not become more complicated following the leaving of the EU. It becomes simpler.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/can ... ence-make/

This is a discussion about leaving the EU, remember?

[woodburner]

Logic, mmmm.........., often twisted to suit a position. Be careful how you use it.

A cat has three tails. How so?
No cat has two tails.
One cat has one more tail than no cat.
One cat therefore has three tails.

[vtsnowedin]

Logic, mmmm.........., often twisted to suit a position. Be careful how you use it.

A cat has three tails. How so?
No cat has two tails.
One cat has one more tail than no cat.
One cat therefore has three tails.

You just failed logic 101.

[johnhemming2]

As a sovereign nation we can choose to subscribe to the jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights or not, or even remain a member of the European Council or not,

The European Council is an EU institution. The Council of Europe is not.

The same argument, of course, applies to the EU. We can choose to be in the EU and be subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU (aka ECJ) alternatively we can choose not to be in the EU, but remain in the EEA. Alternatively we can choose to leave that, the UN, the ICC, etc etc,

We have always been sovereign as a country in that respect.

It is the government's explicit policy to remain within the Council of Europe even though Theresa May decided at one stage that she didn't like the ECtHR, but they have accepted that we should remain subject to its jurisdiction.

I did a TV debate with Bill Etheridge and the only E institution he wished to remain in was the EBU with Eurovision.

[Little John]

.....It is the government's explicit policy to remain within the Council of Europe even though Theresa May decided at one stage that she didn't like the ECtHR, but they have accepted that we should remain subject to its jurisdiction......

Although it is, in principle, possible to leave ECtHR whilst remaining in the EU, in practice it would be incredibly convoluted, if not for all practical purposes impossible due to a morass of other EU treaties.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/can ... ence-make/

The way things are going with the EU, and the very likely outcome of it ceasing to exist in anything like its current form in ten years time, I would pull us out of anything that is, one way or another, linked to EU jurisdiction, even if only indirectly, and wait for the dust to settle.

[johnhemming2]

The way things are going with the EU, and the very likely outcome of it ceasing to exist in anything like its current form in ten years time, I would pull us out of anything that is, one way or another, linked to EU jurisdiction, even if only indirectly, and wait for the dust to settle.

Including ERASMUS?

[Little John]

Putting aside the fact that student exchange programs could be agreed with individual nation states, my own view is a very straightforward rule of thumb; if any agreements we have with any other international parties cause us to lose sovereignty over some aspect of our own internal affairs and if that loss of sovereignty is directly traceable to EU fingerprints being anywhere on those agreements, then we should pull out of them and form new agreements to replace them. Or, at least, to the extent that we must, in certain circumstances, make treaty agreements with the EU, then those agreements should go nowhere near issues of internal sovereignty. Or, if they do, then they must be put to plebiscite. Every single one of them.

[AutomaticEarth]

There you go folks,

Tony Blair urging everyone to rise up against Brexit - you couldn't make this up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 85016.html

Hopefully this will make pro-Brexit sentiment stronger

[johnhemming2]

He, of course, was the idiot that decided no interim limits were required on EU migration following 2004.