Reply to: Why bother with an EU referendum?

[DodgyAgent]

There seems to be a misconception here that commission decides how the EU is run.

The EU executive is the council of ministers. The comission simply excute the decision from the council of ministers.

For example. The Euro was an initiative from France and Germany supported by most other countries, it wasn't an initialive from some EU commissioner. But they're the bureacrats that execute the decision. It was the council of ministers that put together a rescue package for Greece and agreed all the conditions, not the EU Commision. The EU commision subsequently adminstrated the whole thing.

The Comission is equivalent to the British Civil Service, obviously Civil Servents are influential look at "Yes Minister" they can mould things to a certain extent, which is what all the fuss is about.

So in the end the EU is still run by the heads of states.

The council of ministers can sack the entire EU commision at any time they choose and no commisioner gets appointed without a majority vote in the council.

What democratic mandate does the council of ministers have?

[Zero Liability]

@Dodgy Agent, I agree with you on UKIP. I appreciate their role in acting as political competition to the Tories, forcing them more rightwards economically, and I hope they keep the pressure on them to this end, as well as offering a referendum. As a party, however, it is politics as usual. I do like particular individuals, like Farage, William Dartmouth, Godfrey Bloom (formerly of the party) etc., however, particularly for making the EU stiffs look like the twats that they are, especially the abominable van Rompuy, Barroso, Verhofstadt and Juncker, who I would not grace with so much as a drop of urine if they were on fire.

As for the Tories, this won't go down too well. Although it does indicate that they acknowledge when their policies go badly, Labour will pounce on this. I am hoping the Tories sustain enough political capital to beat Labour in the next election and perhaps enter a coalition with UKIP, dropping the rather useless Lib-Dems, who have proven themselves to be serial liars, and putting an end to policies purely intended to win them the next election, so the economy can start a real recovery and re-adjustment. The Tory desire to merge NI/income tax is a positive, if they stick to it and lower taxes/spending/borrowing, something which to date they have not really done. Still, the last thing I'd want is to see Labour come in and mess it all up again, with their incompetent twit "leaders" (the two Eds.)

[BlasterBates]

There seems to be a misconception here that commission decides how the EU is run.

The EU executive is the council of ministers. The comission simply excute the decision from the council of ministers.

For example. The Euro was an initiative from France and Germany supported by most other countries, it wasn't an initialive from some EU commissioner. But they're the bureacrats that execute the decision. It was the council of ministers that put together a rescue package for Greece and agreed all the conditions, not the EU Commision. The EU commision subsequently adminstrated the whole thing.

The Comission is equivalent to the British Civil Service, obviously Civil Servents are influential look at "Yes Minister" they can mould things to a certain extent, which is what all the fuss is about.

So in the end the EU is still run by the heads of states.

The council of ministers can sack the entire EU commision at any time they choose and no commisioner gets appointed without a majority vote in the council.

[speling bee]

Very good. You should do a Hitler parody video

You can be the comical short fat hand-wringing Belgian collaborationist mayor.

[KentPhilip]

The Volkssturm? Excellent idea. If they can hold of the EUSSR invaders awhile, perhaps Le Pen's Charlemagne Legions can break through. IF ONLY THERE WERE MORE TIME!

Very good. You should do a Hitler parody video

[speling bee]

Well we'll see. I'll pass on your points to my local committee and see what their take is on it - they might have a different perspective perhaps..

The Volkssturm? Excellent idea. If they can hold of the EUSSR invaders awhile, perhaps Le Pen's Charlemagne Legions can break through. IF ONLY THERE WERE MORE TIME!

[KentPhilip]

Goalposts are moved by governments all the time. Electoral boundary changes for example are what most people would define as "moving goalposts. this happens frequently in governments.
A "war on corruption" does not give investigators an excuse to line their own pockets. There is no legal, political or other mandate for a war on the EU which in the eyes of all parties is a legal (even if unpopular) series of institutions. Much as you would like to pick and choose your definitions of legitimacy your precious members of UKIP have no mandate to screw British taxpayers money out of the EU. If you think for a minute that this policy of yours impresses anyone then I think you will find that once the EU debate is settled your party will disappear.

Well we'll see. I'll pass on your points to my local committee and see what their take is on it - they might have a different perspective perhaps..

[DodgyAgent]

"war on terrorism", "war on poverty", "war on corruption" are three examples of wars that are not terrible things. All that "war" means in these contexts, and the context that I have stated it in, is an uncompromising focus on the target of what we are trying to achieve. I think we would agree that what makes "war" terrible is when innocent lives are lost due to involvement of the military. Wars where that does not happen are never "terrible".

The fact of the matter is that UKIP have in the european elections been given a democratic mandate by the UK voters to get the UK out of the EU. There is no legal reason why UKIP should not try to claim as much as it can from the EU to try to achieve this objective, particularly as the EU actively encourage MEPs to claim. Just as when a business tries to maximise profits it will do anything legal to achieve that, regardless of morality, I see no reason why "morals" have any significant importance in terms of how UKIP should try to achieve this objective. The end justifies the means.




The difference is that those treaties move the goalposts - change the way that the people in power is decided.
To give an extreme example, Adolf gave the Germans an election in 1933, which he won. He then changed the rules to say there would be no further elections. Could this be justified on the basis that he had been given a democratic mandate to do this? No because he was voted in for a 4-year period, not for life. In the same way the UK governments were voted in for 4 years, and were not entitled to change the way that ongoing powers were decided (Maastrich, Lisbon) for way over 4 years.

Goalposts are moved by governments all the time. Electoral boundary changes for example are what most people would define as "moving goalposts. this happens frequently in governments.
A "war on corruption" does not give investigators an excuse to line their own pockets. There is no legal, political or other mandate for a war on the EU which in the eyes of all parties is a legal (even if unpopular) series of institutions. Much as you would like to pick and choose your definitions of legitimacy your precious members of UKIP have no mandate to screw British taxpayers money out of the EU. If you think for a minute that this policy of yours impresses anyone then I think you will find that once the EU debate is settled your party will disappear.

[KentPhilip]

That's Brucie isn't it?

[speling bee]

Now I remember where I've seen KentPhilip before

[speling bee]

"war on terrorism", "war on poverty", "war on corruption" are three examples of wars that are not terrible things. All that "war" means in these contexts, and the context that I have stated it in, is an uncompromising focus on the target of what we are trying to achieve. I think we would agree that what makes "war" terrible is when innocent lives are lost due to involvement of the military. Wars where that does not happen are never "terrible".

The fact of the matter is that UKIP have in the european elections been given a democratic mandate by the UK voters to get the UK out of the EU. There is no legal reason why UKIP should not try to claim as much as it can from the EU to try to achieve this objective, particularly as the EU actively encourage MEPs to claim. Just as when a business tries to maximise profits it will do anything legal to achieve that, regardless of morality, I see no reason why "morals" have any significant importance in terms of how UKIP should try to achieve this objective. The end justifies the means.




The difference is that those treaties move the goalposts - change the way that the people in power is decided.
To give an extreme example, Adolf gave the Germans an election in 1933, which he won. He then changed the rules to say there would be no further elections. Could this be justified on the basis that he had been given a democratic mandate to do this? No because he was voted in for a 4-year period, not for life. In the same way the UK governments were voted in for 4 years, and were not entitled to change the way that ongoing powers were decided (Maastrich, Lisbon) for way over 4 years.

Parliament can recall the powers in a single day.

[KentPhilip]

Not by any classification does your definition of our relationship with the EU mean war. I will add at this stage that I am a big supporter of what UKIP are trying to achieve. War is a terrible thing and you calling your campaign a "war" demeans the seriousness of war itself. You seem to think that just because you define your position within the EU as war you are morally entitled to plunder money from the EU. Let me tell you that you are not.

"war on terrorism", "war on poverty", "war on corruption" are three examples of wars that are not terrible things. All that "war" means in these contexts, and the context that I have stated it in, is an uncompromising focus on the target of what we are trying to achieve. I think we would agree that what makes "war" terrible is when innocent lives are lost due to involvement of the military. Wars where that does not happen are never "terrible".

The fact of the matter is that UKIP have in the european elections been given a democratic mandate by the UK voters to get the UK out of the EU. There is no legal reason why UKIP should not try to claim as much as it can from the EU to try to achieve this objective, particularly as the EU actively encourage MEPs to claim. Just as when a business tries to maximise profits it will do anything legal to achieve that, regardless of morality, I see no reason why "morals" have any significant importance in terms of how UKIP should try to achieve this objective. The end justifies the means.

Whatever the democratic limitations of our relationship with the EU are, successive UK governments elected by the british people within the rules of whatever constitution we have in the UK were legally entitled to sign the Maastrich and Lisbon treaties on behalf of the UK.
According to your logic this removes their legitimacy as the party of government.

The difference is that those treaties move the goalposts - change the way that the people in power is decided.
To give an extreme example, Adolf gave the Germans an election in 1933, which he won. He then changed the rules to say there would be no further elections. Could this be justified on the basis that he had been given a democratic mandate to do this? No because he was voted in for a 4-year period, not for life. In the same way the UK governments were voted in for 4 years, and were not entitled to change the way that ongoing powers were decided (Maastrich, Lisbon) for way over 4 years.

[speling bee]

Not by any classification does your definition of our relationship with the EU mean war. I am a big supporter of what UKIP are trying to achieve. War is a terrible thing and you calling your campaign a "war" demeans the seriousness of war itself. You seem to think that just because your define it as war you are morally entitled to plunder money from the EU. Whatever the democratic limitations of our relationship with the EU is, successive UK governments elected by the british people within the rules of whatever constitution we have in the UK were legally entitled to sign the Maastrich and Lisbon treaties on behalf of the UK.

We voted to join the EU but that does not mean the electorate has to endorse every move the EU makes does it? I voted for the current conservative government but I haven't voted for some of the laws they have subsequently passed. According to your logic this removes their legitimacy as the party of government.

If what you are saying about what UKIP members are doing with whatever they are plundering from the EU is true then why don't they say so and itemise their expenditure accordingly?

In fact they should hold a triumphal march through Frinton-on-Sea displaying their booty.

[DodgyAgent]

You might not regard yourself as being at war with the EU, but many others, both in UKIP and the electorate as a whole, do. We won't/can't use military force or commit criminal acts in our battle with them as you would in a traditional war, because these would be illegal, and we don't break the law. So it does not look like a "war". But it is one.

As a country we have NOT made the decision to hand over money to the EU, because all that the referendum in 1975 asked was whether we wanted to be in the common market, only. People have much better things they would rather the state spend the money on.

I'm not quite sure I understand you in your second paragraph, but all I can say is that UKIP are not pilfering the money to build duck houses with, or fund expensive lunches - every penny, almost, goes on printing leaflets, essential travel, newspaper adverts, booking village halls for campaigning meetings, and other related campaigning activities.

Not by any classification does your definition of our relationship with the EU mean war. I will add at this stage that I am a big supporter of what UKIP are trying to achieve. War is a terrible thing and you calling your campaign a "war" demeans the seriousness of war itself. You seem to think that just because you define your position within the EU as war you are morally entitled to plunder money from the EU. Let me tell you that you are not. Whatever the democratic limitations of our relationship with the EU are, successive UK governments elected by the british people within the rules of whatever constitution we have in the UK were legally entitled to sign the Maastrich and Lisbon treaties on behalf of the UK.

We voted to join the EU but that does not mean the electorate has to endorse every move the EU makes does it? I voted for the current conservative government but I haven't voted for some of the laws they have subsequently passed. According to your logic this removes their legitimacy as the party of government.

If what you are saying about what UKIP members are doing with whatever they are plundering from the EU is true then why don't they say so and itemise their expenditure accordingly?

[BrilloPad]

You might not regard yourself as being at war with the EU, but many others, both in UKIP and the electorate as a whole, do. We won't/can't use military force or commit criminal acts in our battle with them as you would in a traditional war, because these would be illegal, and we don't break the law. So it does not look like a "war". But it is one.

Why can't we just do what other countries in the EU do and just take the bits we like?

Is it UKIP policy to believe we are at war with the EU?