We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If we vote for Brexit what happens
Comments
-
It's interesting that everyone is slating the EU deal without referencing it.
For those that are interested to understand what the deal actually is rather than banging on about bloody foreigners it's here:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/02-letter-tusk-proposal-new-settlement-uk/
I think the thing that should, but won't, assuage the hate of the 'out of the EU at any cost' group (as opposed to the doubters) is:
(My emphasis underlined).
TBH I, as someone that is pro the EU, had a problem with 'ever closer union' as stated in the Treaty of Rome. This clause seems to resolve that and seems to guarantee opt outs in perpetuity. As long as Labour don't beggur it all up by signing the UK in to deals that the Tories kept the UK out of again then all should be well.
Yes that's right. I suspect that most of the knee jerk-don't-like-the-EU people discussing here have still not read the proposed agreement: they should because many comments are just wrong and pure prejudice.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-draft-eu-deal-full-text/
There have been mutterings about Soverignty here, implying that this is degraded. That is not true: for example it states that:
"The competences conferred by the Member States on the EU can be modified, whether to increase or reduce them, only through a revision of the Treaties with the agreement of all Member States.
That means that any state can veto a loss of its sovereignty and for the UK, because of the law passed in the previous Government, that the people can veto it because in that situation there would be a Referendum.
Further, subsidiary (the principle that things should be done at Member State level rather than EU level), has been reinforced and it is stated that if, in the context of subsidiarity, 55% of Member States support an objection of a State to a legislative act proposed by the Commission then it will be stopped UNLESS it accommodates the concerns expressed.
The ability to claw back Competences, AKA Powers, is clearly agreed by the statement:
"Therefore, the references to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties.
These references do not alter the limits of EU competence governed by the principle of conferral, or the use of the EU competence governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. They do not require that further competences be conferred upon the European Union or that the European Union must exercise its existing competences, or that competences conferred on the EU could not be reduced and thereby returned to the Member States."
There are some here who complain about the language used. Well tough, it's the language used in International agreements for legal clarity. The matter is important and an effort to understand it is necessary and worthwhile.
Elsewhere in that document it talks about borders, reminding us that the UK does have border control (if we make a mess of that it's our fault) and also a very good appreciation of the potential problem of EU immigrants not being entitled to benefits if they have not contributed.
In fact most, if not all the things that people complain about regarding the EU are dealt with in that document.
What it does not cover is the underlying jingoistic clap-trap about not trusting foreigners and so on.
My own view? I think it is worded sufficiently well to get passed and if so it is a good agreement.
If it does not get passed, then that icould be a different story.Union, not Disunion
I have a Right Wing and a Left Wing.
It's the only way to fly straight.0 -
Whate'ver you say f'ella.
I'll ask a question then. Why do you s'tay in the EU and sh'ow tacit supp'ort for it?
Apologies my punctuation is rubbish.
I do recognise that despite you 'bugging out' of the UK and the EU project altogether and moving to Australia, you are still allowed an opinion.
My attitude to the EU is on the negative side, but like most UK citizens I`ll go with the flow post the referendum.“Britain- A friend to all, beholden to none”. 🇬🇧0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards