Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

Well, given that the governments of the time explicitly agreed to have EU directives binding on member nations and that said laws are voted upon by the democratically elected European Parliament, you're going to have to do a lot more than that to suggest it's not democratic. It infringes on national sovereignty by design, yes, but it certainly is not undemocratic.

 

[innonimatu]

No, they're not. They have in fact, no relation with one another whatsoever.

Not at all. But this is a What if? argument that basically can't be proved or disproved. If the UK didn't want TTIP they should have not taken part in it. So it's a weird argument to begin with. anyway, since TTIP is - like all trade agreements - temporary, it can be suspended or not prolonged. I have no clue what you are trying to argue here.

Passing over other stuff which can be checked independently by anyone... in this point, what do you think the TTIP is about? Have you been following the discussion about it recently?

And tell me, can any single EU country suspend or void a trade treaty entered into by the EU and in force already? Under the EU rules, which means, without leaving the EU to do so?
In a sovereign nation a government can do so. In a "member state" of the EU that is only possible if this "state" claims back its sovereign first.

A good thing then that no EU nation has given up national government then - let alone sovereignty. Have you even remotely followed this year's refugee crisis?

There were rules allowing for the closing of borders on certain conditions, more than met by that crisis. Too bad, I would much rather it had caused a real "constitutional" crisis already.

Any EU country can leave the union if it so pleases. I have no clue why you would think that the euro would somehow prevent that.

Greece was invited to do so. And it was pointedly demonstrated to them that they would have no means of handling imports and exports, no system of payments, for months to come and would have people dying for lack of essential goods, should they go down that route. They decided to submit with the hope that something would change in the EU. A foolish hope, but one I can understand given their choice at the time.

Bureaucrats (officials) don't have diplomatic immunity. Nor do they have 'tax-free wages'(?). Seriously, how do you make such stuff up?

EU bureaucrats have enjoyed diplomatic immunity from the very start of the several organizations that were merged into the current EU. I can prove that to you, just check the European Central Bank's own site, as that particular EU institution worries very much about proclaiming all the privileges it enjoys. Because without them they would have been dragged to the courts already for several illegal decisions taken.

PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF 8 APRIL 1965

Article 1
The premises and buildings of the Communities shall be inviolable. They shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation. The property and assets of the Communities shall not be the subject of any administrative or legal measure of constraint without the authorization of the Court of Justice
[...]
Article 3
The Communities, their assets, revenues and other property shall be exempt from all direct taxes.
[...]
Article 4
The Communities shall be exempt from all customs duties, prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of articles intended for their official use
[...]
Article 6
For their official communications and the transmission of all their documents, the institutions
of the Communities shall enjoy in the territory of each Member State the treatment accorded by that State to diplomatic missions.
[...]
The provisions of Article 6 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Coal and Steel Community shall, however, remain applicable to members and servants of the institutions [...]

Article 12
In the territory of each Member State and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall:
(a) subject to the provisions of the Treaties relating, on the one hand, to the rules on the liability of officials and other servants towards the Communities and, on the other hand, to the jurisdiction of the Court in disputes between the Communities and their officials and other servants, be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words spoken or written. They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office

Article 13
Officials and other servants of the Communities shall be liable to a tax for the benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by the Communities, in accordance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission.
They shall be exempt from national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities.

Notice that article 6 has bee used by the ECB to refuse giving any answers to national courts or parliaments. And this is all part of the current "Acquis communautaire", having been extended to the numerous bureaucracy of the EU.

There is also this paper on "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK" that spells out a lot more on the subject. Do read it. Some choice picks:

These general provisions are implemented by the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 (‘Protocol’). The Protocol is an integral part of the EC Treaty and is binding on all Member States of the European Union; it takes precedence over national law
[...]
Exemption from national employment and social welfare law
In addition, the ECB is not subject to German employment and social welfare law (Article 15 of the Headquarters Agreement)
[...]
ECB has chosen a pragmatic approach: it complies with health and safety regulations on a voluntary basis.
[...]
No official of the Government or person exercising any public authority, whether administrative, judicial, military or police shall enter the premises of the ECB except with the consent and under the conditions approved by its President
[...]
The ECB’s official communications are also protected against measures of constraint. According to Article 6 of the Protocol:
‘For their official communications and the transmission of all their documents, the institutions of the Communities [and the ECB] shall enjoy in the territory of each Member State the treatment accorded by that State to diplomatic missions.
[...]
On the other hand the scope of the immunity granted to ECB staff is broader than diplomatic status in some respects. First, ECB staff enjoy immunity in all EU Member States including their country of origin, whereas diplomats only enjoy immunity in the country where they are accredited but not in their country of origin. Second, in contrast to diplomats, ECB staff continue to enjoy immunity even after they have ceased to hold office. This extension of immunity is required in order to prevent former ECB staff being sued for acts performed during their term of office. If ECB staff risked being sued immediately after their term of office, they would not be able to fulfil their tasks with full independence
and impartiality.
[...]
Tax law
In a number of judgments the Court of Justice has stressed that the provision must be interpreted broadly. This applies initially to the terms ‘salaries, wages and emoluments’. These include all kinds of payments received from the ECB in consideration for services rendered by the member of staff. The term ‘emolument’ covers all kinds of allowances, including for instance widows’ allowances. The term ‘taxes’ has equally to be interpreted broadly. Article 13, paragraph 2, precludes any national tax, regardless of its nature and the manner in which it is levied, which is imposed directly or indirectly on an ECB staff member by reason of the fact that they are in receipt of remuneration paid by the ECB, even if the tax in question is not calculated by reference to the amount of that remuneration. Taking into account the staff member’s income for the calculation of the tax rate applicable to other income of that person or to the income of the spouse in the case of joint taxation is also prohibited.
[...]
The ECB also enjoys immunity from national jurisdiction. This means that in principle national courts are not empowered to decide on legal disputes involving the ECB. Actions against the ECB are inadmissible and must be dismissed. [...] Legal disputes which do not fall under the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice may be brought before a national court. Since the competencies of the Court are interpreted broadly and may be extended by way of arbitration clauses, the practical relevance of this subsidiary competence is limited
[...]
Furthermore, the ECB enjoys immunity from enforcement. This means that claims against the ECB may not be enforced by administrative or legal measures of constraint without the prior authorisation of the Court of Justice[...]The members of the Executive Board and ECB staff also enjoy privileges and immunities[...]

I have PROVEN to you that my claim was true: EU staff (on several levels, not just the ECB) enjoy immunities described the the EU institutions as similar to diplomatic immunity (diplomatic immunity having several levels under international customs and treaties) and receive tax-free wages, and several other tax exemptions and privileges. Will you be man enough to accept you were wrong, for once here?

 

[innonimatu]

Well, given that the governments of the time explicitly agreed to have EU directives binding on member nations and that said laws are voted upon by the democratically elected European Parliament, you're going to have to do a lot more than that to suggest it's not democratic. It infringes on national sovereignty by design, yes, but it certainly is not undemocratic.

There is more to democracy than just passing laws. There is - and this is of crucial importance - the ability to repel laws. Imagine you had to live forever with whatever laws Cameron's government passes while it holds a majority in Parliament...

Can the European Parliament start proceedings to make changes in the Acquis communautaire? No, it can not. It has no legislative initiative. Nor does it appoint a government. Once passed, there are no democratic controls over EU regulations. Unless you actually get the most powerful governments to push through changes to the existing regulations and treaties through the Commission. The process is anything but transparent or democratic.

And you have too much faith on the possibility of the European Parliament ever working as parliament for a democratic european state. (national) Identity politics within Europe, and a huge fragmentation of political groupings (give the EP real power and its "families" would immediately break apart) would preclude having a functional parliament.

I will also offer you some insights about how EU institutions currently work, based on a case I followed recently. A relatively small private bank in Portugal failed in November. It was already in a bad shape, forcing the new government to seek a solution to "resolve it. But then a news report published on a media group controlled by Santander caused a bank run, and the portuguese central bank had to be called in to provide liquidity. The ECB made this contingent on selling the bank to a bigger bank approved by the EU Commissar on Competition. Since it looked like public money would have to be injected anyway the government favoured merging it with a state-owned bank. The EU commission forced instead a "sale" to... Santander, which was the sole buyer approved by the commission. Santander demanded, and got, some 2 billion euro lump payment, plus a billion more on guaranteed. It already reported a profit on the deal...
The way this deal was made obviously raised suspicions. Parliament had a commission that wanted to head the ECB's version of how things went on. The ECB refused to provide any information whatsoever, invoking its immunities. So did the EU commission. In the meanwhile a commissar has stated in an interview that the EU needs big transnational banks in order to "stabilize its finance sector". Read: in order to deny any financial autonomy to national governments and be able to scare depositors that in the event of any conflict between their government and the EU their deposits on $big_eu_bank are at risk.

You see, I know how sausages are made in the EU. That is why I want it gone ASAP. You have not yet noticed these things in the UK because yours is a big and powerful country (thus harder to mess with) and still outside the euro. But even big and powerful, were you within the Euro you'd be having the same trouble as Italy already has. Also, if you think the EU will protect UK citizens from right-wing governments... the EU has not given a damn (past the usual statements) about Poland's or Hungary's. So long as they do not fight the EU's economic agenda it's all right.

 

[Arakhor]

There is more to democracy than just passing laws. There is - and this is of crucial importance - the ability to repel laws. Imagine you had to live forever with whatever laws Cameron's government passes while it holds a majority in Parliament...

I'm well aware of that. It's the main reason why I think that granting Westminster sole control over British human rights would be a terrible idea. It's also the mechanism by which we'd leave the EU: repealing the various acts which caused us to join the EEC and later the EU in the first place.

You can say that I'm in a privileged position as a British citizen and all that, but frankly, since this is a thread about British politics, I see that as kind of the point.

 

[Kyriakos]

So, when will your 100-year old queen make her speech to support staying in the Eu?

 

[really]

Foreign leader addressing immigrants who have refused to integrate - urges them to vote remain for the benefit of the old country
(At a Gaelic Athletic Association Football match in London)

 

[Agent327]

And tell me, can any single EU country suspend or void a trade treaty entered into by the EU and in force already? Under the EU rules, which means, without leaving the EU to do so?
In a sovereign nation a government can do so. In a "member state" of the EU that is only possible if this "state" claims back its sovereign first.

In any democracy a majority vote will overrule a minority vote. So once again, I'm not sure what you are arguing here exactly. Did the UK vote against the current TTIP proposals? If not, what's your point? You also didn't address what I mentioned that if the UK (or any other EU member) would not like a Communal trade treaty renewed or altered it can discuss and vote to do so. None of which has anything to do with any perceived sovereignty loss - which you haven't proved in the first place. There are, in fact, several ways in which the UK has opted out of Communal treaties, notable the euro and the Schengen treaty.

There were rules allowing for the closing of borders on certain conditions, more than met by that crisis. Too bad, I would much rather it had caused a real "constitutional" crisis already.

Again, no perceived loss of sovereignty. Rather. the opposite. You seem to be arguing counterfactual.

Greece was invited to do so. And it was pointedly demonstrated to them that they would have no means of handling imports and exports, no system of payments, for months to come and would have people dying for lack of essential goods, should they go down that route. They decided to submit with the hope that something would change in the EU. A foolish hope, but one I can understand given their choice at the time.

You pointed out convincing reasons for Greece not to leave the euro - not the EU, which was never a point of discussion.

EU bureaucrats have enjoyed diplomatic immunity from the very start of the several organizations that were merged into the current EU. I can prove that to you, just check the European Central Bank's own site, as that particular EU institution worries very much about proclaiming all the privileges it enjoys. Because without them they would have been dragged to the courts already for several illegal decisions taken.

While officials may indeed have diplomatic immunity in their official capacity, your conclusion doesn't follow at all. It's pure speculation based on the idea that officials are engaged in illegal actions, for which you provide no proof whatsoever.

Notice that article 6 has bee used by the ECB to refuse giving any answers to national courts or parliaments.

That would be appropriate as Community institutions are accountable to the EU parliament, not national parliaments.

 

[Arakhor]

So, when will your 100-year old queen make her speech to support staying in the Eu?

Firstly, she's 90, not 100, and secondly, that is something she'd never do, as she strictly remains above public political opinions.

 

[Borachio]

Until she doesn't, that is.

I don't think she'll voice an opinion on this issue, actually. But there's always a possibility that she might.

After all, if the Queen of England doesn't have any political function at all, of what use is she?

 

[Kyriakos]

^I think the queen will only be making a 'stay in the eu' tone argument, IF the estimated results are clearly against 'stay' by the time the vote has approached dramatically. Otherwise, her fellow fiends don't need to use that card just yet.

 

[Borachio]

All the indications so far show that the vote will roughly be 55% in favour of staying in.

Therefore, no need for the Queen, and her evil fiends, to do anything but stay mum. As you say.

 

[Arakhor]

After all, if the Queen of England doesn't have any political function at all, of what use is she?

You know as well as I do that she has several political functions, but she doesn't have public political opinions. Besides, there hasn't been a Queen of England in over 300 years.

 

[Takhisis]

So, when will your 100-year old queen make her speech to support staying in the Eu?

In ten years' time, roughly. Why?

All the indications so far show that the vote will roughly be 55% in favour of staying in.

Therefore, no need for the Queen, and her evil fiends, to do anything but stay mum. As you say.

She is a mum, isn't she?

You know as well as I do that she has several political functions, but she doesn't have public political opinions. Besides, there hasn't been a Queen of England in over 300 years.

Two years ago she certainly didn't have much of a political opinion.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The EU does claim the right to enact laws that apply to the UK whether its government, its parliament and its citizens wish it or not.

The UK is perceived as the most sceptical large EU country.

And if the UK votes "Remain", the EU crats, enthusiasts and federalists etc will all claim
that the UK public has thereby knowingly agreed and given them a real democratic
mandate to continue to complete the transfer of all remaining UK authority to the EU.

The role of the UK parliament and government will be something between a German
Lander and an English County Council, whose primary duties will be to collect the taxes
for the EU, enforce its regulations and, if it likes, compete with other EU states in
begging for distribution of portions of the funds that they have collected for the EU.

This is why, contrary to all the propaganda put out by the EU and UK government
machines and the international corporates, voting Remain is NOT a vote for
continuity, the same again, low risk, the status quo, no change, steady as
she goes, the middle of the road; but a vote to end the UK as a country.

 

[Takhisis]

Thats the problem with such a vote, if you vote for remain you strengthen the organism/group/alliance in which you remain. Not holding a vote simply lets fervor build up or die, on its own.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Thats the problem with such a vote, if you vote for remain you strengthen the organism/group/alliance in which you remain. Not holding a vote simply lets fervor build up or die, on its own.

Thank you for your very succinct summary, sir.

The sad thing is that I doubt that 10% of the UK
public or 30% of the UK politicians understand this.


I am 60 years old, and will not live to see the end of this.

It is just a shame that most of those who are voting do not understand
the various risks that a more powerful EU will have. I know because if they
did, they would demand democratic safeguards before carrying forward.

 

[Takhisis]

There was a similar separatist referendum in Scotland a bit less than two years ago. Nobody seems to be taking any lessons from it, Mr. Edward.

 

[EnglishEdward]

"It has been claimed". That's the ultmate in stock weasel phrases, just like "some say." The sentence is never wrong. I can say that "some say the Queen plans to arrest parliament and reign as an absolute monarch" and it would be true, because I said it.
One of the most reliable indicators that what you're reading is made up nonsense.

Are you saying that there are no plans being made for common defence?

By the way anything that the EU sceptics state is reported as claimed because the
media is currying favour with the winning side which looks like the Remain campaign.

I have also read the bits in the draft EU Constitution and Treaty about common defence.

Are you saying that those clauses are made up nonsense too?

 

[Borachio]

a vote to end the UK as a country.

I'll be voting Leave (I think), but I fail to see that the UK ending as a country would be (even if it happened - which it won't, at least not any time soon - but never mind) a bad thing.

You seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to be implying that it would be a bad thing. What makes you think so?

What in particular - of glorious intrinsic worth, for example - would the world, or even the inhabitants of the current UK, be losing?

But there, I have to admit, I fail to appreciate the sense of pride that so many people seem to have in the land of their accidental birth. It's a bit like, imo, being proud of being six foot tall, or four foot six, or of being a startling orange colour.

I'm quite happy to live here. But I'd be quite happy to live anywhere I'd been born, I think.

 

[Arakhor]

This is why, contrary to all the propaganda put out by the EU and UK government machines and the international corporates, voting Remain is NOT a vote for continuity, the same again, low risk, the status quo, no change, steady as she goes, the middle of the road; but a vote to end the UK as a country.

That's certainly one way to be dramatic. To think that in this very thread you were lambasting Vote Remain as Project Fear!

Two years ago she certainly didn't have much of a political opinion.

If you mean the comments where she allegedly expressed satisfaction that Scotland had chosen to remain in the UK, I can quite imagine that she would be and it was expressed in private (if indeed it was at all).