6 ms·

You can explore it as much as you want. There will always be those who are well-to-do found in every cause. They voted for self-governance and sovereignty. Man

by maratd 10y ago

You can explore it as much as you want. There will always be those who are well-to-do found in every cause. They voted for self-governance and sovereignty. Many had their own reasons and desires for that sovereignty, but that's what they voted for. Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That is antithetical to democracy and good governance.

tremon 10y ago
Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? For one, because the political organization benefits them? Control is not the only desirable property of an organization. Furthermore, the UK did not have zero control over the EU. It had one commissioner (the same amount as any other member state), and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) -- So your question misrepresents the situation. If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK.
- maratd 10y ago
  > It had one commissioner And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election. > and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) I must have missed this election as well! > If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. I was quite articulate, thank you. The problem really is that when people such as yourself are incapable of making a coherent argument in turn, they resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. > Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. Care to expand on this?
  - adwf 10y ago
    The commissioner is appointed by the PM, so you vote for him every general election. The idea that the EU is undemocratic is absurd. It's doubly absurd considering we still have a House of Lords... The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything. The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry. No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.
  - arrrg 10y ago
    Do the people vote for ministers in member states? Commissioners are appointed and they are appointed because the governments they appoint them are so horny for power, they want to exactly pick the person they want. I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK. The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way). You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014. Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.
- DominikR 10y ago
  > Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. I honestly doubt that the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) will not be able to get a significantly better deal than Norway. Just look at how many exceptions and special conditions they previously received from EU treaties.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Sixth largest: https://reportuk.org/2016/06/24/france-overtakes-uk-as-fifth-largest-economy-as-pound-plummets/ https://reportuk.org/2016/06/24/france-overtakes-uk-as-fifth... One of the reasons they are such a large economy is because they are the financial gateway to Europe. If your global rank is conditional on having single market access to the EU, you can't really use that as a bargaining power for getting access to that same market... But yes, they should be able to negotiate a better deal than Norway.
scribu 10y ago
> Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org (some of which were mentioned in this thread).
- maratd 10y ago
  > That's called a strawman argument. Stop whining. > But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org I don't believe I said there weren't any. There are many. It seems the voters value their liberty and self-determination more.
  - madgar 10y ago
    I'm guessing you believe every US state should be calling to secede, because they "have zero control" and "have to pay taxes" to the federal government? Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives?
    - maratd 10y ago
      > Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives? Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. You get to vote for zero in the EU.
      - arrrg 10y ago
        Members of parliament? Plus, commissioners are appointed by the member state governments, so indirectly you can vote for those, too. There are no kings or queens running the EU, nor do people just randomly show up and get power. Everyone who has power is either elected or was appointed by someone who was elected.
      - 10y ago

by maratd 10y ago

tremon 10y ago

Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? For one, because the political organization benefits them? Control is not the only desirable property of an organization. Furthermore, the UK did not have zero control over the EU. It had one commissioner (the same amount as any other member state), and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) -- So your question misrepresents the situation. If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK.

maratd 10y ago
> It had one commissioner And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election. > and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) I must have missed this election as well! > If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. I was quite articulate, thank you. The problem really is that when people such as yourself are incapable of making a coherent argument in turn, they resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. > Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. Care to expand on this?
- adwf 10y ago
  The commissioner is appointed by the PM, so you vote for him every general election. The idea that the EU is undemocratic is absurd. It's doubly absurd considering we still have a House of Lords... The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything. The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry. No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.
- arrrg 10y ago
  Do the people vote for ministers in member states? Commissioners are appointed and they are appointed because the governments they appoint them are so horny for power, they want to exactly pick the person they want. I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK. The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way). You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014. Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.
DominikR 10y ago
> Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. I honestly doubt that the UK (fifth largest economy in the world) will not be able to get a significantly better deal than Norway. Just look at how many exceptions and special conditions they previously received from EU treaties.
- tremon 10y ago
  Sixth largest: https://reportuk.org/2016/06/24/france-overtakes-uk-as-fifth-largest-economy-as-pound-plummets/ https://reportuk.org/2016/06/24/france-overtakes-uk-as-fifth... One of the reasons they are such a large economy is because they are the financial gateway to Europe. If your global rank is conditional on having single market access to the EU, you can't really use that as a bargaining power for getting access to that same market... But yes, they should be able to negotiate a better deal than Norway.

scribu 10y ago

> Why should any people have a desire to be a part of a political organization over which they have zero control, but must pay taxes to? That's called a strawman argument. Of course no one would want to be part of such an org, if that was all there was to it. But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org (some of which were mentioned in this thread).

maratd 10y ago
> That's called a strawman argument. Stop whining. > But you conveniently left out all the benefits of being in that org I don't believe I said there weren't any. There are many. It seems the voters value their liberty and self-determination more.
- madgar 10y ago
  I'm guessing you believe every US state should be calling to secede, because they "have zero control" and "have to pay taxes" to the federal government? Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives?
  - maratd 10y ago
    > Since US states, just like Britain in the EU, participate in the larger governing body through representatives? Not quite. For the US federal government, you get to vote for 2 senators, a number of congressmen, and the president. You get to vote for zero in the EU.
    - arrrg 10y ago
      Members of parliament? Plus, commissioners are appointed by the member state governments, so indirectly you can vote for those, too. There are no kings or queens running the EU, nor do people just randomly show up and get power. Everyone who has power is either elected or was appointed by someone who was elected.
    - 10y ago