If there isn't a hard-border what would stop Eastern European immigrants entering UK via Ireland??

Zxcv_Bnm

Herzlos wrote: »

Of course, but it actually will result in taking back control. There's lots of things our parliament wants to do up here but can't because it's reserved to Westminster. Very few of them are reserved to Brussels.

The aim of the EU is for everything to be reserved to Brussels

it's not a trading arrangement, that's just where it started

it's a supranational body

it's fine to argue for that if you think it's a good idea

it's not fine to pretend that's not the idea or won't happen

this is why Remain saying Leave told lies gets no traction. it's true but Remain lied too so why vote for either

Herzlos

I haven't seen any sign that Brussels want powers that aren't in some way related to trade or economies. The EU army is mostly a resource optimization thing.

J_Nostin

Herzlos wrote: »

I haven't seen any sign that Brussels want powers that aren't in some way related to trade or economies. The EU army is mostly a resource optimization thing.

"Resource optimization" my foot! It's another costly layer of bureaucracy and removal of decision-making from member countries.
Never, NEVER does adding another layer of rules & regulations save time, money or resources. Anybody who has ever studied business knows the cost of increasing layers of bureaucracy together with it's other disadvantages.

phillw

kabayiri wrote: »

If they really want to go, give them another vote I say. You don't really want an Union member not committed to the Union. (whatever that Union might be).

You also don't want a minority of people pulling you out of a union.

Ironically it's the same ruling elite that are causing both acts of self harm

J_Nostin wrote: »

"Resource optimization" my foot! It's another costly layer of bureaucracy and removal of decision-making from member countries.
Never, NEVER does adding another layer of rules & regulations save time, money or resources. Anybody who has ever studied business knows the cost of increasing layers of bureaucracy together with it's other disadvantages.

They aren't adding "another layer of rules" they are consolidating rules and decision making. Like when they copy and pasted our banana quality quidelines and turned them into an EU wide guidelines.

Or like drug testing, aircraft rules etc etc etc

I don't see a point in wasting a lot of money on each country deciding how to judge aircraft safety, when the end result would be that they'd save money by not doing it.
I have never formally studied business, but cost saving through consolidation seems to be pretty popular and successful from a laymans perspective.

I really don't understand the paranoia about the EU.

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

You also don't want a minority of people pulling you out of a union.
...

Nope, which is why you give them a referendum, preferably one run on the right lines, with a clear plan for what to do with a split decision.

If an independent Scotland were to join the EU/Euro, then it's up to them to make it work. That's no different to our exit.

phillw

kabayiri wrote: »

Nope, which is why you give them a referendum, preferably one run on the right lines, with a clear plan for what to do with a split decision.

Quite, if only we had the opportunity to do that.

kabayiri wrote: »

If an independent Scotland were to join the EU/Euro, then it's up to them to make it work. That's no different to our exit.

Well they'd have the advantage, because the bad actors would be stuck in westminster and unable to twist things for their own advantage.

andrewf75

J_Nostin wrote: »

"Resource optimization" my foot! It's another costly layer of bureaucracy and removal of decision-making from member countries.
Never, NEVER does adding another layer of rules & regulations save time, money or resources. Anybody who has ever studied business knows the cost of increasing layers of bureaucracy together with it's other disadvantages.

But surely the whole point of having common rules and regs is to remove the layers?

Not having the flexibility at individual country level is obviously the downside

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

Quite, if only we had the opportunity to do that.
...

The MPs had ample opportunity to determine the referendum rules before it took place.

But, we all know, Cameron was banking on a particular result, and he got it wrong. That's why he didn't putting in a buffer zone on the result.

That's not my problem. I took part in the referendum under the rules in place. I'm not here to correct the incompetence of politicians.

mayonnaise

kabayiri wrote: »

The MPs had ample opportunity to determine the referendum rules before it took place.

And they did so by the EU Referendum Bill, which stipulated that the referendum would be advisory only and not legally binding.

andrewf75

mayonnaise wrote: »

And they did so by the EU Referendum Bill, which stipulated that the referendum would be advisory only and not legally binding.

But that was always a bit stupid. There isn't much point having a vote unless you implement the result!