Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrorism

Phoenix One UK · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Heinrich said:
Perhaps I am wrong and the English are not Eurosceptics.

The English comprise of both Eurosceptics and Europhiles. One does not infer the other.

Heinrich · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
The English comprise of both Eurosceptics and Europhiles. One does not infer the other.

Somehow I got the impression that all the English ever do is complain about being in the European Union. They are the only country planning a referendum to leave. My question is what is taking them so long.

Phoenix One UK · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Heinrich said:
Somehow I got the impression that all the English ever do is complain about being in the European Union. They are the only country planning a referendum to leave. My question is what is taking them so long.

Dutch economists & ex-ministers: Brexit so disastrous that Dutch government should campaign against it

Dutch economists & ex-ministers: Brexit so disastrous that Dutch government should campaign against it

Your impression is wrong. The above was extracted from [UK] Lib Dem site. They are the most pro EU party of the lot with UKIP the most anti EU party of the lot. The Tory and Labour party are split with Eurosceptics/Europhiles, though Labour have lost more of their supporters to UKIP than Tories. The net immigration figures released today would probably increase the Eurosceptic camp, particulary given the large increase of migrants from member states alone.

PeteEU · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Natan said:
What do you mean with this?

The Treaty of Rome is an international obligation..

Belgium as such does not want to change anything as Belgium is not a single person.

No it is a country, that has democratic elections and those result in a government.. well it should, that then runs the country on behalf of the people.

Many people however opposed the previous expansion of the EU and there is no public support for continued expansion towards Ukraine and/or Turkey.

Yes many people did, and they usually blame everyone else for their problems.... and what expansion towards Ukraine or Turkey? Have you even been following the news the last few years? Those projects are dead in the water because the countries cant meet basic democratic principles.

joG · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
Your impression is wrong. The above was extracted from [UK] Lib Dem site. They are the most pro EU party of the lot with UKIP the most anti EU party of the lot. The Tory and Labour party are split with Eurosceptics/Europhiles, though Labour have lost more of their supporters to UKIP than Tories. The net immigration figures released today would probably increase the Eurosceptic camp, particulary given the large increase of migrants from member states alone.

The thing is that the EU will have to punish GB for leaving. If it didn't or didn't succeed it would destabilize the membership and make decision making much more difficult.
So there would be negative repercussions. If the EU did not want to do harm, nothing at all would change except the UK would not have a vote for later decisions and Germany would have a much, much stronger influence.

Phoenix One UK · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

joG said:
The thing is that the EU will have to punish GB for leaving. If it didn't or didn't succeed it would destabilize the membership and make decision making much more difficult.
So there would be negative repercussions. If the EU did not want to do harm, nothing at all would change except the UK would not have a vote for later decisions and Germany would have a much, much stronger influence.

I heard that argument more than once, and there is a flaw in it. Punish Britain how? Restrictions on trade? Given the UK imports far more from EU member states than it exports, I believe that fact alone would make them rethink trying that stunt. Not only would such action be illegal under WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules of which the EU and every member state within is a member, but the one who would suffer most would be those EU member states themselves, especially those in Eurozone. Note the Eurozone crisis is not over, and I seriously doubt any member state therein would want to do anything that may increase their economic woes. As for Germany, it already possesses a strong influence on all member states within EU. It is one of reasons for increase in eurosceptism throughout the block. Further, Germany is a major exporter to Britain with Britain being one of its best customers. Do you seriously believe they would cease trade or start a trade war with one of their best customers?

PS Note:

Germany admits migrant crisis is OUR fault as asylum system is a ?magnet for refugees?* | Daily Mail Online

Germany could not very well deny this nor can they deny that their actions created problems for other EU member states.

Phoenix One UK · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Migrant crisis could destroy the euro, warns Juncker: Collapse of the Schengen zone means a single currency 'makes no sense', he admits

Jean-Claude Juncker warns the migrant crisis could destroy the euro if Schengen zone fails | Daily Mail Online

Added this one in support of previous post. Note the success of the euro (I use success here loosely in light of problems they already have with it) relies on the continuation of open borders, and those borders are closing one after another.

Chagos · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
I heard that argument more than once, and there is a flaw in it. Punish Britain how? Restrictions on trade? Given the UK imports far more from EU member states than it exports, I believe that fact alone would make them rethink trying that stunt. Not only would such action be illegal under WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules of which the EU and every member state within is a member, but the one who would suffer most would be those EU member states themselves, especially those in Eurozone. Note the Eurozone crisis is not over, and I seriously doubt any member state therein would want to do anything that may increase their economic woes. As for Germany, it already possesses a strong influence on all member states within EU. It is one of reasons for increase in eurosceptism throughout the block. Further, Germany is a major exporter to Britain with Britain being one of its best customers. Do you seriously believe they would cease trade or start a trade war with one of their best customers?

PS Note:

Germany admits migrant crisis is OUR fault as asylum system is a ?magnet for refugees?* | Daily Mail Online

Germany could not very well deny this nor can they deny that their actions created problems for other EU member states.

Twisted and misrepresented by the Fail as usual.

Oettinger apportioned no blame to anyone, did not speak of anybody's fault and addressed the asylum laws of Germany specifically. Those, incidentally, being enshrined in the constitution.

And not even that article in the Fail mentions problems caused to other member states.

One of your usual disingenuous representations.

Chagos · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
Added this one in support of previous post. Note the success of the euro (I use success here loosely in light of problems they already have with it) relies on the continuation of open borders, and those borders are closing one after another.

and yet another one.

Juncker's statement was primarily political in its significance

and you might want to not only read the article but try to understand it as well.

As to

I use success here loosely in light of problems they already have with it

, if you're incapable of seeing the common currency success, that makes your previous statement of being well versed in EU matters even more risible.

Chagos · Nov 26, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
I heard that argument more than once, and there is a flaw in it. Punish Britain how? Restrictions on trade? Given the UK imports far more from EU member states than it exports, I believe that fact alone would make them rethink trying that stunt. Not only would such action be illegal under WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules of which the EU and every member state within is a member, but the one who would suffer most would be those EU member states themselves, especially those in Eurozone.

That's ridiculous.

For one thing "punishment" was never mentioned anywhere but your reference to the WTO is rubbish. If UK is no longer in the EU there's nothing that can force the EU to grant it the same conditions as other EU members enjoy. That would mean imports from Britain would fall under less preferably duty rates (current one being zilch), exports to Britain would be the UK's concern as to what tariff they would apply.

With the UK's trade balance being negative as it is, I suppose you're suggesting that Britain would then impose higher tariffs on goods from the EU, just to punish the EU for not letting it export as before? And if the EU don't like it, UK will cover its imports from...........who?

Balderdash!!!

joG · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
I heard that argument more than once, and there is a flaw in it. Punish Britain how? Restrictions on trade? Given the UK imports far more from EU member states than it exports, I believe that fact alone would make them rethink trying that stunt. Not only would such action be illegal under WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules of which the EU and every member state within is a member, but the one who would suffer most would be those EU member states themselves, especially those in Eurozone. Note the Eurozone crisis is not over, and I seriously doubt any member state therein would want to do anything that may increase their economic woes. As for Germany, it already possesses a strong influence on all member states within EU. It is one of reasons for increase in eurosceptism throughout the block. Further, Germany is a major exporter to Britain with Britain being one of its best customers. Do you seriously believe they would cease trade or start a trade war with one of their best customers?

PS Note:

Germany admits migrant crisis is OUR fault as asylum system is a ?magnet for refugees?* | Daily Mail Online

Germany could not very well deny this nor can they deny that their actions created problems for other EU member states.

There are lots of things besides trade in goods that could be painful. There are all sorts of rules that make things much easier between EU members than WTO rules do. That is why countries the world over are doing regional trade treaties.

Phoenix One UK · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Chagos said:
That's ridiculous.

For one thing "punishment" was never mentioned anywhere but your reference to the WTO is rubbish. If UK is no longer in the EU there's nothing that can force the EU to grant it the same conditions as other EU members enjoy. That would mean imports from Britain would fall under less preferably duty rates (current one being zilch), exports to Britain would be the UK's concern as to what tariff they would apply.

With the UK's trade balance being negative as it is, I suppose you're suggesting that Britain would then impose higher tariffs on goods from the EU, just to punish the EU for not letting it export as before? And if the EU don't like it, UK will cover its imports from...........who?

Balderdash!!!

WTO membership list: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

I never said anything about same conditions, but I do believe even the EU is compelled under WTO rules to follow certain conditions. As for rest, I see no need to repeat what I already stated.

Phoenix One UK · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

joG said:
There are lots of things besides trade in goods that could be painful. There are all sorts of rules that make things much easier between EU members than WTO rules do. That is why countries the world over are doing regional trade treaties.

I used the WTO as just one example. Another is USA itself. They trade with the EU, and last I looked they are not members. The same goes for other countries like China and Japan, and they are not members either, but I do not see anything stopping g them trading, so why should it be different for UK?

PS: Note that when I state EU I am referring to member states, as the EU has no industry or population.

Chagos · Nov 27, 2015

Re: Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrori

Phoenix One UK said:
WTO membership list: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

I never said anything about same conditions, but I do believe even the EU is compelled under WTO rules to follow certain conditions. As for rest, I see no need to repeat what I already stated.

Neither do I.

Four reasons why we shouldn’t transfer more powers to the EU to deal with terrorism

Well-known member