Brexit: Should the UK stay or go?

Except we'll actually have an input and the ability to negotiate on our own behalf. Not told to get in line by the EU at every turn because what's best for us isn't best for some failing country with awful unemployment rates who WE usually end up bailing out because the EU can demand larger payments from us because we have a good financial year.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:We can't even deport terrorists without the EUs go ahead. Our own national security is hindered by morons.

Hm. Strangely in this article appears as if it is not really the EU's fault, but rather the UK's problem that they can't deport terrorists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11427130/Britain-must-fix-system-to-deport-terror-suspects.html

They write that France have not real problems to kick out terrorists, while the UK only deport a handful of them, while both being EU members.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Yes democracy is wonderful, until you can no longer make changes that will benefit your own country because somebody in Greece or Romania don't agree with you.

At what point do we put our own countries and peoples needs first? Short answer is, we can't. Not in the EU.

So democracy as a whole is doomed if you don't get what you want? What a ridiculous stance.

Wish I registered to vote for this thing 2 months ago.

And yet at the same time some simple google searches yield results like this too

"Britain could be banned from extraditing terror suspects by the EU, in a new Brussels power grab.

One of the top legal advisers to the EU’s European Court of Justice said that – for the first time – its judges should be allowed to hear appeals from the likes of Abu Hamza if their human rights are being challenged.

The move would make it far harder to boot out crime suspects – and hugely undermine the Government’s commitment to end the human rights madness.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: ‘The argument that Europe is somehow improving our security is falling apart in the Government’s hands.’

The EU advocate general has been considering whether the ECJ should adopt powers to rule on extradition cases.

Every other member state submitted that the EU should have no legal powers in this field. But the UK raised no objection – and was even supportive of the latest power grab, according to papers released yesterday.

Advocate generals are the most senior legal advisers to the EU court, and their advice is normally accepted.

Once this happens, MPs say the Charter of Fundamental Rights will apply whenever third countries such as the US and Australia want to extradite EU citizens from the UK.

This will make it easier for foreign criminals to remain in Britain by arguing they might face ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ overseas….

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/05/suicide-eu-may-ban-deporting-terrorism-suspects.html/#sthash.02PkVvQ7.dpuf"


As soon as the EU start implementing human rights nonsense in regards to terrorists we're screwed. Will we be able to say 'No'

Yeah

Just like the last 55 cases where we'll get overruled anyway.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Yes democracy is wonderful, until you can no longer make changes that will benefit your own country because somebody in Greece or Romania don't agree with you.

At what point do we put our own countries and peoples needs first? Short answer is, we can't. Not in the EU.

So democracy as a whole is doomed if you don't get what you want? What a ridiculous stance.

Wish I registered to vote for this thing 2 months ago.

Didn't register? Get to the back of the line then. (:



So what, we should accept being overruled almost 100% of the time? Surely democracy has to work both ways.

Bending over to the EUs will and paying them ridiculous sums of money at the same time is pathetic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3532727/UK-taxpayers-face-50bn-bill-EU-judges-overrule-tax-laws-exposing-multinationals-use-EU-courts-claw-taxes.html



"UK taxpayers face £50bn bill after EU judges overrule our tax laws - exposing how multinationals use EU courts to claw back taxes
Tax rules were drawn up by Treasury officials and approved by MPs
But European Court of Justice ruled them illegal, forcing HMRC to issue huge refunds to businesses
Priti Patel says the figures show how the EU favours multinational firms
But Employment minister adds that small businesses will be better off out"

Gotta love that, nothing better than being overruled and we the taxpayers being left to pick up the slack because some EU dick judges overrule us as per usual.

Oh another beauty

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648899/Britain-loses-most-cases-taken-to-European-Court-EU-referendum-Vote-Leave-Gove


around 3/4 of cases we've taken to European court have been lost.


EUs lackeys.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Didn't register? Get to the back of the line then. (:



So what, we should accept being overruled almost 100% of the time? Surely democracy has to work both ways.

Bending over to the EUs will and paying them ridiculous sums of money at the same time is pathetic.

The UK should work within the system to further their interests. Germany/Scandinavia/Netherlands/UK all pretty much want to move the EU in the same direction of less centralized power and less bloated regulations. If the UK leaves it will still have to comply with a lot of these things UK businesses don't like, as 45% of their exports go there, but they will have no voice in it or ability to change it.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:"Britain could be banned from extraditing terror suspects by the EU, in a new Brussels power grab.

"Could" is a possibility, not a final verdict.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:One of the top legal advisers to the EU’s European Court of Justice said that – for the first time – its judges should be allowed to hear appeals from the likes of Abu Hamza if their human rights are being challenged.

What is wrong in hearing an appeal? This doesn't mean the culprit cannot be deported in the end after all.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:The move would make it far harder to boot out crime suspects – and hugely undermine the Government’s commitment to end the human rights madness.

Harder, yeah, but not impossible.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: ‘The argument that Europe is somehow improving our security is falling apart in the Government’s hands.’

Why is that so? You can still deport a culprit if your laws find him guilty after the hearing.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:The EU advocate general has been considering whether the ECJ should adopt powers to rule on extradition cases.

Every other member state submitted that the EU should have no legal powers in this field. But the UK raised no objection – and was even supportive of the latest power grab, according to papers released yesterday.

So you mean the UK would have been in favour of ceding power in this case? Why then would that be a case for the UK wanting more souvereignty?

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Advocate generals are the most senior legal advisers to the EU court, and their advice is normally accepted.

Well, advice is advice - and that's not binding.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Once this happens, MPs say the Charter of Fundamental Rights will apply whenever third countries such as the US and Australia want to extradite EU citizens from the UK.

This will make it easier for foreign criminals to remain in Britain by arguing they might face ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ overseas….

So the UK wanted to cede the power to the EU and you complain now that this would make it more difficult for the UK to kick out terrorists?

Frankly, I fail to understand your argumentation there.

If the odds weren't so terrible and we maybe actually won 50% of the cases we take to European court and didn't get overruled 55/55 times and counting maybe it wouldn't be all so bad.

How can you stay in the EU and work within the system if the system keeps knocking you back and saying NO.




Skim through this


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

This is the most powerful man in our country, a man who actually wants to remain negotiating with the EU. He got absolutely schooled.

So if the most powerful man in the country, our leader can't successfully negotiate within the EU then what the hell can anybody possibly do?

Sure he got a little joy out of them, but he couldn't even stop migrant workers sending child benefit money out of the country back to their homes

The point @RWO is when such things happen we have no say in the matter.

A hearing for convicted terrorists? Nice.

Here's an actual case that has happened

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/668367/terrorism-Home-Office-Theresa-May-politics-human-rights-Algeria



We can't deport terrorists that have been DEEMED a threat to national security because there's a chance that 'they will face tortue if they were deported back to Algeria'


There you have it. We have to keep terror suspects with links to terrorist organisations in our country. Another great benefit brought to you by the EU.

As for the UK 'ceding power' yeah that's thanks to MR Cameron, a vehemently pro EU Politician. Thankfully we can vote him out, unlike our EU Presidents.

Of course the EU has been amazing and we'd die without it

I mean look at how wrong we were in rejecting the 'Euro' what a resounding success that has been.


EU and Britain benefited from each other for a while. That's really not the case any more. Time to move on.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:"UK taxpayers face £50bn bill after EU judges overrule our tax laws - exposing how multinationals use EU courts to claw back taxes

In the article you linked, you have "The types of taxes the EU declared unlawful include a form of corporation tax on profits distributed by a subsidiary to a parent company and stamp duty serve tax - a levy raised on electronic paperless share transactions."

Isn't this exactly the financial transaction tax that Angie & Co wanted to implement Europe wide, but which was vetoed by the UK to protect the City of London?  It sounds intriguing that the UK doesn't want such a tax EU-wide, while it actually has one for their own coffers?

Well it's better to be self serving for a change eh? It's not like the rest of Europe let us do anything. In fact according to some politicians on the debate show just last night, I think it was Borris, we get Vetoed against more than any other member. Period. Just another point that shows even now in the EU we're constantly at odds. So why bother continuing?

rwo power wrote:If you were outvoted in these points, it just means you didn't manage to convince the others that your point would be beneficial for the greater good. And as you could be outvoted, this means that it was a democratic vote and thus it shows that the EU is in fact a democratic organisation and not a dictatorship.

If the UK could push through something on their own without the others having the right to vote things down if they don't appear beneficial, then it would be a dictatorship.

As for the immigration point - what about the immigrants from outside the EU that don't fall under the EU jurisdiction anyway?

There's a certain threshold at which technocracy starts to resemble intellectual aristocracy far more than it does democracy.

Lots of people feel unrepresented and powerless in democracy within the parameters of a nation state. Multiply that by 1000 and it may be close to the level of detachment you have in a federation of nations in which bureaucrats gather to engage in a democratic process amongst themselves where they vote on legislation that they had no role in creating.
Of course this is only an issue for people who aren't satiated with bread and circuses 24/7 365 days a year.

@Tomwin

Well, I can see that you have your mind made up and came to different conclusions on what being in or out of the EU will mean for the UK. I respect your opinion, even though I do not share it, so I guess we have to agree to disagree on many of the points.

As I am not in the UK, I watch the proceedings with interest from afar, and I hope for you that you won't have to deal with any worst case scenario.

I respect your opinion too, at the end of the day a lot of this is interpretation. All you can do is make up your own mind. Which isn't exactly easy when most of the information you get on both sides is warped.

I'm still firmly in the 'out' camp, my bottom line is that I don't believe we can stop the power shift from the UK to the EU and whilst I can vote a political party out here in the UK, no matter which party is in, the EU get the final say in a lot of matters. And we're powerless as the voter to stop them.

I trust everyone made the right vote

Hope you all voted guys

Voting

RealGunner wrote:Hope you all voted guys

Yeah.
Emailed mine a few hours ago.

nipping down to voting place in 20 mins to do it

Can you vote if you're a descendent of British colonization from a couple hundred years ago?

My forefathers fought for my right to vote in Britain, I think.

Early indications suggest exit is highly likely 55%-45%

So what are the implications of an exit? Higher taxes?