Let's embrace the world: Why I'm voting Leave

[Loki]

I wonder how much of that is related to the Greek bailout. Most of the countries at the top weren't big fans.

[Aimless]

It's a bit creepy though to see how influential the UK is, for being a bunch of marginalised losers:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...an-parliament/

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...-negotiations/



It's almost as if some people are underestimating the UK's real and meaningful influence and giving undue consideration to the UKIP's expected lack of influence. Creepy

[RandBlade]

And how workable do you think your country would be if a party with 1% of the seats had a veto right on everything? Are you really that deluded?

As for the wasteland, my dear, you really should hit some history books.

My country is a country not a mere trade organisation. That is why there is no such thing as QMV in places like WTO because it knows its place, while the trade organisation that is the EU does not.

[RandBlade]

Holy crap is that the rise of the Euroskeptic-groups we're seeing in the 2009-2015 graph?

Lisbon Treaty saw a number of areas that were previously needed to be unanimously now capable of being passed by QMV instead. So pre Lisbon Treaty figures are not that relevant.

[Loki]

Ignoring the fact that when it comes to enforcement, there's no voting at all. So are you going to explain the paradox of you opposing giving up sovereignty while supporting trade agreements, which provide one of the largest infringements on a country's sovereignty?

[RandBlade]

Because new laws are not being undemocratically enforced on us in any organisation except the EU. The laws that have been agreed in Treaties were agreed by our Parliament and passed democratically. The EU bypasses Parliament and creates new laws unilaterally and undemocratically.

Trade agreements were signed and ratified by us. New laws are not. Can you not see the difference?

[Loki]

That's ridiculous. Parliament x signs a trade agreement. Parliament y signs a law that violates said trade agreement. UK gets punished by the WTO.

Parliament x signs up to various EU treaties. Parliament y signs a law that violates said agreements. UK gets punished by the EU.

You're drawing a non-existent distinction. And you're changing the goal-posts, which is that the UK should protect its sovereignty at all costs. Trade agreements are massive violations of sovereignty.

[Aimless]

I wonder how much of that is related to the Greek bailout. Most of the countries at the top weren't big fans.

I guess that's also possible. Most of the posts in that series seem to attribute the greater part of the UK's recent track-record for losing to the UKIP's representation (which became more significant after the 2009 and 2014 EU parliamentary elections) and afaict something similar happened in 2014 in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. Additionally, the UK's representatives seem to be on the losing side of votes that have to do with the budget more often than in any other area.

I'm not sure how that 12% number would change if we didn't count the UKIP's votes but it would be interesting to see if a smaller number would be more palatable to RB.

[Loki]

I find the whole sovereignty argument from someone pushing for free movement of goods and labor to be incredibly dishonest. What he wants is to cede power to organizations he likes and avoid ceding them to ones he does not, and the EU is clearly on the latter list. And that fact makes this whole thread pointless because Rand is assuming at the start (that the EU is bad) what he intends to prove.

[Aimless]

Lisbon Treaty saw a number of areas that were previously needed to be unanimously now capable of being passed by QMV instead. So pre Lisbon Treaty figures are not that relevant.

The new voting rules came into effect towards the end of 2014 and afaict any member state can request that a vote be conducted under the old rules at least until 2017. UK reps would have had to lose a very large number of votes in a very short period of time in order to affect the results of that dataset.

[Aimless]

New laws are not.

You'll note that the vast majority of the things the EU decides to do, it seems to do with the approval--almost always explicit, sometimes tacit--of your ministers, who are, curiously enough, more often on the losing side of a vote in the Council when they vote against their fellow party members in the European Parliament:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts...-uk-influence/

(some more results from the research discussed in the LSE blog posts).

[LittleFuzzy]

This particular peeve doesn't have to do with RB's views on democracy so much as it has to do with his view of sovereignty being defined as a binary-either or property made for British Empire. Someone who views sovereignty in that way can't see the EU as anything but an unacceptable existential threat to British sovereignty even though the Brits voluntarily gave the EU some of their sovereignty as well as supremacy over their laws in exchange for something they believed was more worthwhile.

He doesn't though. He accepts it in areas where he finds it worthwhile to trade away the sovereignty, such as to achieve freer trade. He just thinks that many/most of the areas the EU legislates on are things he does not and would not trade away his "local" control to get. Those aren't worthwhile to him. And that's a perfectly reasonable expression of self-determination. And let's not forget, Minx, that the EU as it is now is most definitely not the same entity that the British originally joined. It's scope has advanced quite a bit as it follows that "ever-closer union" mantra and the Brits who decided to join a few decades ago might well not have decided to join if it had looked like it does now. I can almost guarantee a number of other countries also would not have joined the EU as it stands now if it had been the choice they were making back when they did join.

[Loki]

Except that's not the argument he makes. He clearly stated that sovereignty in itself should be the key objective.

No one forced the Brits to vote for any of the treaties that changed the EU from what it was to what it is. Each treaty was supported by the representatives of the British Parliament.

[Aimless]

He doesn't though. He accepts it in areas where he finds it worthwhile to trade away the sovereignty, such as to achieve freer trade.

Afaict from the last month or so of discussions on these topics he does not in reality accept any infringement of what he views as complete British sovereignty. I'm struggling to think of a single situation where he has said that it's worthwhile to trade some sovereignty for eg. freer trade. In any case where he may have implied such a thing I believe he did not actually view it as a surrender of sovereignty because it came with the standard RB disclaimer that Brits can unilaterally and fearlessly renege on their obligations and parliament can do whatever the hell it pleases, in theory (slight hyperbole). In other words, my impression has been that when RB says something that to us implies that he's willingly trading sovereignty for something else, he doesn't believe he's surrendering any sovereignty at all. I'd be happy to see his take on this tbh.

He just thinks that many/most of the areas the EU legislates on are things he does not and would not trade away his "local" control to get. Those aren't worthwhile to him. And that's a perfectly reasonable expression of self-determination. And let's not forget, Minx, that the EU as it is now is most definitely not the same entity that the British originally joined. It's scope has advanced quite a bit as it follows that "ever-closer union" mantra and the Brits who decided to join a few decades ago might well not have decided to join if it had looked like it does now. I can almost guarantee a number of other countries also would not have joined the EU as it stands now if it had been the choice they were making back when they did join.

That's undoubtedly true and I certainly wouldn't have minded the EU taking it easy with that process. Nevertheless, the Brits have moved largely in lockstep with everyone else when concrete questions have been put to the vote, right up until a few years ago. Indeed they've helped shape most of that journey.

[RandBlade]

That's ridiculous. Parliament x signs a trade agreement. Parliament y signs a law that violates said trade agreement. UK gets punished by the WTO.

Parliament x signs up to various EU treaties. Parliament y signs a law that violates said agreements. UK gets punished by the EU.

You're drawing a non-existent distinction. And you're changing the goal-posts, which is that the UK should protect its sovereignty at all costs. Trade agreements are massive violations of sovereignty.

No you are failing to understand what is pretty simple. Parliament x signs up to various EU treaties. Eurocrats y changes the law without British democracy.

The latter is what I disagree with. That the law can be changed by our Parliament ratifying a treaty is one thing, that the law can be changed by others ratifying a new law is entirely different.

[RandBlade]

Except that's not the argument he makes. He clearly stated that sovereignty in itself should be the key objective.

No one forced the Brits to vote for any of the treaties that changed the EU from what it was to what it is. Each treaty was supported by the representatives of the British Parliament.

The Lisbon Treaty (which changed a large swathe of areas from unanimity to QMV) was signed by a Parliament whose MPs had explicitly promised a referendum on the then EU Constitution before ratification. That referendum that was promised never happened and the government that betrayed its promise was ejected by the electorate at the subsequent election.

Being able to change the course of governance that does what we dislike is democracy and I believe it is the best way to determine who governs us. In Parliament we elect a national government and can kick them out, in the EU we don't.

[Hazir]

I find the whole sovereignty argument from someone pushing for free movement of goods and labor to be incredibly dishonest. What he wants is to cede power to organizations he likes and avoid ceding them to ones he does not, and the EU is clearly on the latter list. And that fact makes this whole thread pointless because Rand is assuming at the start (that the EU is bad) what he intends to prove.

OMG. Thanks for writing that.

Following his logic the USA should never have been founded and all states would have been better off if they had retained their sovereignty

[Hazir]

Seems like British individuals also are afraid of an exit; they are buying foreign currency.

[Loki]

No you are failing to understand what is pretty simple. Parliament x signs up to various EU treaties. Eurocrats y changes the law without British democracy.

The latter is what I disagree with. That the law can be changed by our Parliament ratifying a treaty is one thing, that the law can be changed by others ratifying a new law is entirely different.

You realize this is how your own bureaucracy works as well, right?

[RandBlade]

You realize this is how your own bureaucracy works as well, right?

No it isn't. Domestic law changes need to be approved by British Parliamentarians. International Treaties need to be approved by British Parliamentarians. EU laws can be changed against the wishes of those we have elected.

The equivalent is Mexico being able to change your domestic laws.

[Aimless]

I say we give Labour the veto

[Aimless]

Btw, it may finally have happened for real: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...-speak-english

[Khendraja'aro]

My country is a country not a mere trade organisation. That is why there is no such thing as QMV in places like WTO because it knows its place, while the trade organisation that is the EU does not.

Nice non-sequitur.

The EU, by the way, is also not a mere "trade organisation".

Do you have any other false facts I can enlighten you on?

OMG. Thanks for writing that.

Following his logic the USA should never have been founded and all states would have been better off if they had retained their sovereignty

It also makes for a nice argument for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to secede.

[Hazir]

Another little something about sovereignty; in Switzerland the sovereign is the body of voters. Under the British constitution the sovereign is Parliament. With regards to a referendum that means that with a Swiss referendum the outcome binds the state. In the UK on the other hand the outcome of a referendum is merely an expression of the will of the body of voters. That means that the British parliament can decide that it is expedient to not follow up on a Brexit.

That sounds very impossible today; after all democracy, the voter has spoken bladibladibla. However what if this Friday we indeed witness a Black Friday at the stock exchange and Sterling loses 30% of its value? Will politicians still say that their consience tells them they should go ahead with a Brexit ?

How can you live with that loss of sovereignty Randblade?

[Aimless]

You realize this is how your own bureaucracy works as well, right?

As undemocratic as parliamentary sovereignty may be, there's one difference in the aspect of democracy that makes the British parliament better than the EU, from the perspective of the British voter--namely that British legislators can (in theory) be fairly punished for doing something that British voters disapprove of, and their failure can, in theory, be corrected by a new government. This power is greatly diminished when it comes to legislation enacted by the EU. The influence of individual British ministers and MEPs is comparatively small and punishing them may not always be effective, let alone fair. MPs represent the people but most importantly they're accountable (again, in theory) to the people and their failure to adequately represent the people's wishes can be both punished and remedied. MEPs represent the people, to some extent, but it's not as easy to hold them (fairly) accountable for the actions of the EU, nor is it easy or effective to punish them, and correcting their "mistakes" may seem hopeless to the British voter who doesn't realise that his representatives (except UKIP ) are in reality fairly influential in shaping EU policy.

[Hazir]

As undemocratic as parliamentary sovereignty may be, there's one difference in the aspect of democracy that makes the British parliament better than the EU, from the perspective of the British voter--namely that British legislators can (in theory) be fairly punished for doing something that British voters disapprove of, and their failure can, in theory, be corrected by a new government. This power is greatly diminished when it comes to legislation enacted by the EU. The influence of individual British ministers and MEPs is comparatively small and punishing them may not always be effective, let alone fair. MPs represent the people but most importantly they're accountable (again, in theory) to the people and their failure to adequately represent the people's wishes can be both punished and remedied. MEPs represent the people, to some extent, but it's not as easy to hold them (fairly) accountable for the actions of the EU, nor is it easy or effective to punish them, and correcting their "mistakes" may seem hopeless to the British voter who doesn't realise that his representatives (except UKIP ) are in reality fairly influential in shaping EU policy.

Except of course that in the British electoral system the voter can go screw himself most of the time because his 'representative' only needs to play to the tune of his supporting plurality.

[Aimless]

Like I said, in theory.

[LittleFuzzy]

Nice non-sequitur.

The EU, by the way, is also not a mere "trade organisation".

Which is why he's leery of it.

[Hazir]

Like I said, in theory.

Maybe somebody should explain these Brits it makes more sense to first take their country back from Whitehall.

[Lewkowski]

Btw, it may finally have happened for real: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...-speak-english

Video please.