The wonderful EU and Migration thread!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And if we're not in control of our own Laws, why the fck are we employing 640 fatuous wankers in Government?

Worthy, at least get the numbers right: Which ten aren't fatuous wankers, and shirley the 191 females may well be fatuous but I don't think that (technically) they wank, and you've forgotten the 760 fatuous wankers that we employ on a part time basis in the other place.

I think you've got the speaker, three deputies - (who I'm not sure can vote or not) and 5 sinn fein wankers who don't sit in parliament. So he's only one off unless I've missed someone.

There's the one on maternity leave...I think.

We're still paying for her too.
Don't you start.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

And if we're not in control of our own Laws, why the fck are we employing 640 fatuous wankers in Government?

Worthy, at least get the numbers right: Which ten aren't fatuous wankers, and shirley the 191 females may well be fatuous but I don't think that (technically) they wank, and you've forgotten the 760 fatuous wankers that we employ on a part time basis in the other place.

I think you've got the speaker, three deputies - (who I'm not sure can vote or not) and 5 sinn fein wankers who don't sit in parliament. So he's only one off unless I've missed someone.

There's the one on maternity leave...I think.

We're still paying for her too.
Don't you start.

We'd be saving on expenses...you'd hope!

[Worthy4England]

Our sovereign parliament can choose to leave if it wants, you might have spotted we're currently testing that,, in 40 years we haven't. Which bit of EU law is stopping us doing this, because I'm missing it.

Of course we can leave.
But we are at the behest of laws set by the EU even if they are detrimental to the UK!
Sorry mate, this is about who sets the law, UK or EU? Nice try to deflect the point.

Great, then we're still sovereign...We're only at the behest of any laws set by the EU, because we choose to be, our elected parliament decides that the laws aren't sufficient impact to stop us leaving. The ones we really don't like, we look to water down or have veto's on. We could equally choose to leave should we wish to do so. We have zero veto sat outside of course, they can pass whatever laws they want which may well impact our trading conditions with them - certainly Switzerland and Norway have to accept some of the laws - they get no vote.

[Beefheart]

I liked the idea that Cameron wanted to use an Act of Parliament to enshrine the sovereignty of parliament in law. #circularrefencewarning

[Hoboh]

Our sovereign parliament can choose to leave if it wants, you might have spotted we're currently testing that,, in 40 years we haven't. Which bit of EU law is stopping us doing this, because I'm missing it.

Of course we can leave.
But we are at the behest of laws set by the EU even if they are detrimental to the UK!
Sorry mate, this is about who sets the law, UK or EU? Nice try to deflect the point.

Great, then we're still sovereign...We're only at the behest of any laws set by the EU, because we choose to be, our elected parliament decides that the laws aren't sufficient impact to stop us leaving. The ones we really don't like, we look to water down or have veto's on. We could equally choose to leave should we wish to do so. We have zero veto sat outside of course, they can pass whatever laws they want which may well impact our trading conditions with them - certainly Switzerland and Norway have to accept some of the laws - they get no vote.

Veto?
Past tense, try QMV!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I liked the idea that Cameron wanted to use an Act of Parliament to enshrine the sovereignty of parliament in law. #circularrefencewarning

It happens all the time. French President gave himself emergency powers to enable him to, well err, give himself those powers in the first place. Crimean parliament gave itself powers to rescind the Ukrainian law that forbade it from giving itself powers. President Bokassa announced that he could make himself Emperor, literally crowned himself, made his country an Empire and then retrospectively using his Imperial diktat announced that the former President could elevate himself to the Imperium. etc etc.

[Prufrock]

#parliamentarysupremacy.

Parliament can ban a Frenchman from smoking on the streets of Paris if it wants.

Worthy's nailed the sovereignty nonsense. If we weren't sovereign, we wouldn't be having the referendum.

It's not an argument to leave. It's like saying to a married man: you've given up your freedom to sleep with other women. - Well yes, but by choice, I feel the benefits outweigh the costs, and I haven't really given it up, as I could leave my wife and sleep with other women if I wanted, but I don't want to, the benefits outweigh the costs. -No, you should leave her as you're not free! - But....it's fine. I like it.

There are certainly limits to our sovereignty, but we agreed to them and can leave, much as we can get rid of the limits imposed by being a member of the UN, or NATO, or any other international treaty.

The idea it's not democratic falls down with a similar amount of scrutiny. No primary European legislation is passed without being agreed by the Council and/or the Parliament. The council is made up one each from each of the EU countries (usually it's the PM for us, though it might occasionally be say Foreign Secretary if it's a Foreign Office issue). The Parliament is directly elected. Yes, non-British votes outweigh British votes, but that's how representative democracy works. Our Parliamentary system isn't "undemocratic" because we each only had the opportunity to vote for one of the MPs. I haven't been disenfranchised because the votes for Islington North are outnumbered by the votes for Not-Islington-North.

[Enoch]

The Parliament is directly elected. Yes, non-British votes outweigh British votes, but that's how representative democracy works. Our Parliamentary system isn't "undemocratic" because we each only had the opportunity to vote for one of the MPs.

Maybe post that on a few Jock forums.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The Parliament is directly elected. Yes, non-British votes outweigh British votes, but that's how representative democracy works. Our Parliamentary system isn't "undemocratic" because we each only had the opportunity to vote for one of the MPs.

Maybe post that on a few Jock forums.

Aye. Too right.

[Prufrock]

So they can be wrong again?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So they can be wrong again?

Just to pee them* off really.
(* the intergNats).

[Enoch]

So they can be wrong again?

Just to pee them* off really.
(* the intergNats).

[Worthy4England]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

The Times yesterday looked at Dave Cameron's unveiled bullet points and listed all the reasons against them as to why it is a particularly nebulous fantasy concoction. and it is indeed full of holes big enough to drive a Eurostar through. Gove is a cock-end of the highest order, but what Dave is offering us in the form of continental concessions cannot be enforced, and if Europe turns around and ignores them after we vote to stay in there is bugger all we can do about it, because despite Dave stating as he did on 6th February that "it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations,” is just a bag of wind with no substance.

[Worthy4England]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

The Times yesterday looked at Dave Cameron's unveiled bullet points and listed all the reasons against them as to why it is a particularly nebulous fantasy concoction. and it is indeed full of holes big enough to drive a Eurostar through. Gove is a cock-end of the highest order, but what Dave is offering us in the form of continental concessions cannot be enforced, and if Europe turns around and ignores them after we vote to stay in there is bugger all we can do about it, because despite Dave stating as he did on 6th February that "it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations,” is just a bag of wind with no substance.

It's still more tangible than anything the Brexit crew have told us...As it happens, whatever he negotiated there wasn't (almost certainly) going to change my position anyhow. I'm glad we now know that the Times editorial team are responsible for what happens in Europe, rather than those nasty EU legislators and Rupert Murdoch is so impartial towards this whole issue as a fcking Aussie. I'll start believing everything I don't read in it, coz it's PPV.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

The Times yesterday looked at Dave Cameron's unveiled bullet points and listed all the reasons against them as to why it is a particularly nebulous fantasy concoction. and it is indeed full of holes big enough to drive a Eurostar through. Gove is a cock-end of the highest order, but what Dave is offering us in the form of continental concessions cannot be enforced, and if Europe turns around and ignores them after we vote to stay in there is bugger all we can do about it, because despite Dave stating as he did on 6th February that "it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations,” is just a bag of wind with no substance.

It's still more tangible than anything the Brexit crew have told us...As it happens, whatever he negotiated there wasn't (almost certainly) going to change my position anyhow. I'm glad we now know that the Times editorial team are responsible for what happens in Europe, rather than those nasty EU legislators and Rupert Murdoch is so impartial towards this whole issue as a fcking Aussie. I'll start believing everything I don't read in it, coz it's PPV.

Free 'newspapers' online are mere (utilising a phrase I learned from DSB) clickbait.

Rupert Murdoch might own it, but the journos who work for the Times are credible.

Whatever Dave negotiated doesn't have to change your opinion, if your opinion is solidly pro-Europe, his negotiations weren't conducted for you. But if one's opinion (which yours obviously isn't) is more anti Europe then Dave's promises are supposed to woo you back into the fold. If however it turns out that his negotiations are worthless then it kind of skews the wooing factor, in my very humble opinion, into a negative rather than a positive incentive to vote his way.

[Worthy4England]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

The Times yesterday looked at Dave Cameron's unveiled bullet points and listed all the reasons against them as to why it is a particularly nebulous fantasy concoction. and it is indeed full of holes big enough to drive a Eurostar through. Gove is a cock-end of the highest order, but what Dave is offering us in the form of continental concessions cannot be enforced, and if Europe turns around and ignores them after we vote to stay in there is bugger all we can do about it, because despite Dave stating as he did on 6th February that "it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations,” is just a bag of wind with no substance.

It's still more tangible than anything the Brexit crew have told us...As it happens, whatever he negotiated there wasn't (almost certainly) going to change my position anyhow. I'm glad we now know that the Times editorial team are responsible for what happens in Europe, rather than those nasty EU legislators and Rupert Murdoch is so impartial towards this whole issue as a fcking Aussie. I'll start believing everything I don't read in it, coz it's PPV.

Free 'newspapers' online are mere (utilising a phrase I learned from DSB) clickbait.

Rupert Murdoch might own it, but the journos who work for the Times are credible.

Whatever Dave negotiated doesn't have to change your opinion, if your opinion is solidly pro-Europe, his negotiations weren't conducted for you. But if one's opinion (which yours obviously isn't) is more anti Europe then Dave's promises are supposed to woo you back into the fold. If however it turns out that his negotiations are worthless then it kind of skews the wooing factor, in my very humble opinion, into a negative rather than a positive incentive to vote his way.

Indeed on all points. If Brexit were able to convince me that our trading position would be no different, which they haven't then I'd be less worried one way or t'other.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

The Times yesterday looked at Dave Cameron's unveiled bullet points and listed all the reasons against them as to why it is a particularly nebulous fantasy concoction. and it is indeed full of holes big enough to drive a Eurostar through. Gove is a cock-end of the highest order, but what Dave is offering us in the form of continental concessions cannot be enforced, and if Europe turns around and ignores them after we vote to stay in there is bugger all we can do about it, because despite Dave stating as he did on 6th February that "it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations,” is just a bag of wind with no substance.

It's still more tangible than anything the Brexit crew have told us...As it happens, whatever he negotiated there wasn't (almost certainly) going to change my position anyhow. I'm glad we now know that the Times editorial team are responsible for what happens in Europe, rather than those nasty EU legislators and Rupert Murdoch is so impartial towards this whole issue as a fcking Aussie. I'll start believing everything I don't read in it, coz it's PPV.

Free 'newspapers' online are mere (utilising a phrase I learned from DSB) clickbait.

Rupert Murdoch might own it, but the journos who work for the Times are credible.

Whatever Dave negotiated doesn't have to change your opinion, if your opinion is solidly pro-Europe, his negotiations weren't conducted for you. But if one's opinion (which yours obviously isn't) is more anti Europe then Dave's promises are supposed to woo you back into the fold. If however it turns out that his negotiations are worthless then it kind of skews the wooing factor, in my very humble opinion, into a negative rather than a positive incentive to vote his way.

Indeed on all points. If Brexit were able to convince me that our trading position would be no different, which they haven't then I'd be less worried one way or t'other.

I don't think I have the ammo to convince you. Not that it's my job to, because it ain't. I'm a born again fence sitter. I'm just wobbling slightly towards falling into Hoboh's arms rather than yours, but my reasons are purely to do with "What The Hellism" and coincide only with a passing nod towards why Hoboh will vote. whereas I'm not convinced by your POV simply because I'm not convinced by economic and financial raison d'etres. I'm firmly of the opinion that 'growth' is a bad thing and that humanity will come to rue it.
So neither Hoboh and his views nor you and your views will sway me either way because even if either of you could prove to me that you are absolutely 100% correct, they aren't the core reasons that will sway me.
Mine reasons for Bexit or Britin swing purely on politics.

I like Schengen - but only if it expanded at a proper pace. Greece had no reason to be in it in the first place, it shares no borders with the rest of Schengen, and air travel alone is not a good reason to be allowed to join.
I like the ideal of 'ever closer union'.

I don't like the Euro. Financial union without fiscal union is just fxcking barmy.
I don't like the 'bloc' system within the EU parliament - that needs scrapping totally.

Those four for me are the concrete blocks sitting on the ends of the see-saw. All other issues are at best flimsy crepe paper covered blocks of balsa wood balanced around the middle of the see-saw.

Migrants for example are neither here nor there (if you forgive the pun, if it is one), we'll have heaps of trouble with fxcking migrants whether we are in or out.

[Hoboh]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Michael Gove reckons Cameron's deal with Europe may not be legally binding - errrrr unlike all the high falutin' promises the Brexit campaign are making which aren't actually written down anywhere.....Jog on, cock-end.

Some ambulance chasers drumming up some business then...