To those still arguing about the 2016 referendum, did England’s third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final cross the line or not?
6 Likes
I think we’re agreeing too much here as, you’re right, the referendum is in the past and we need to be looking forward and figuring out how to fix the resulting mess. We just differ on how.
1 Like
Wasn’t it a Russian conspiracy 
2 Likes
I fully agree.
It seems daft that the UK could be in a much better position with some substantial agreements with EU - but these are not progressed for fear of upsetting some outdated “Sovrinty” warriors.
Are we talking about the referendum or the WC Final?
3 Likes
This risks descending into music hall farce - in practice it was both, which was one of the many problems with it.
Legally it was an advisory, non-binding referendum, hence the 50% threshold for a “Leave” result.
Politically Cameron made it binding with his silly leaflet and promises to enact the result “the next day”.
Maybe he was trying to impress upon voters the significance of the result and that they should not lightly choose to leave - if that was the reasoning it backfired spectacularly.
1 Like
Both, of course 
Indeed, I’m sure many voters thought they were “sending a message” as the phrase has it, that they were not happy with the situation, rather than wanting an absolute out. Cameron was a fool, as the result and consequent actions demonstrated, and a spineless one at that for failing to manage the country after and just running away.
4 Likes
But then Parliament voted to enact the result, by a majority of 384.
2 Likes
Sadly, Parliament did not debate properly whether the EU was good or bad…
they took the easy way out and (illegally in my mind) insisted the Referendum was legally binding…
A Referendum is “taking the temperature” .
On the other hand, perhaps an unwelcome General Election result can be brushed aside as “just the mood of the country, nothing to worry about, we can ignore it” 
Actually I forgot to address this one earlier.
I haven’t signed it - not so much that I do not believe we should be back in the EU, nor even that I believe that, petition or not, there will be no political will within the UK to seek readmission in the next decade generation - nor, for that matter within the EU for the UK to rejoin.
But because these petitions are fundamentally a waste of time, merely performative politics by successive governments who want to create the illusion of “listening to the people” when nothing is further from their minds.
4 Likes
Because they were put into a position where “the people had spoken” and Corbyn (a Brexiteer at heart anyway) whipped Labour to support the bill.
I feel the same. You never hear of these petitions again nor what the outcome was, basically a waste of time to be honest.
1 Like
Well, you can just go back to the site and see what happened - I even quoted the “response” by the government. Which, as expected, basically says “no we’re not going to do that, but to fob you off here is some bland rubbish which sounds positive but is expressly structured so as to avoid us actually committing to anything”.
1 Like
I tend to forget such things came up in the beginning, too busy getting on with life and making the best of what we have been dealt by those brexiteering morons.
Well I’m glad that we have found agreement that the EU can, in certain circumstances, over rule the national parliament of a member state. I agree that it doesn’t happen often, but for me, once is too often.
Also, let us not forget that ‘Competence’ is a nice word that actually means ‘Jurisdictional Authority’.
Additionally, perhaps we should consider the advance of Qualified Majority Voting in the EU Council of Ministers. The Treaty of Lisbon expanded QMV quite a lot, so there are many areas which used to require unanimity where that is no longer the case. The table below gives the details.
| Area | Nice | Lisbon | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs | Unanimity | QMV following unanimous request | 15b TEU |
| Rules concerning the European Defence Agency | Unanimity | QMV | 45(2) TEU |
| Freedom to establish a business | Unanimity | QMV | 50 TFEU |
| Self-employment access rights | Unanimity | QMV | 50 TFEU |
| Freedom, security and justice – cooperation and evaluation | Unanimity | QMV | 70 TFEU |
| Border checks | Unanimity | QMV | 77 TFEU |
| Asylum | Unanimity | QMV | 78 TFEU |
| Immigration | Unanimity | QMV | 79 TFEU |
| Crime prevention incentives | Unanimity | QMV | 69c TFEU |
| Eurojust | Unanimity | QMV | 69d TFEU |
| Police cooperation | Unanimity | QMV | 69f TFEU |
| Europol | Unanimity | QMV | 69g TFEU |
| Transport | Unanimity | QMV | 71§2 TFEU |
| European Central Bank | Unanimity | QMV (in part) | 129 TFEU, 283 TFEU |
| Culture | Unanimity | QMV | 151 TFEU |
| Structural and Cohension Funds | Unanimity | QMV | 161 TFEU |
| Organisation of the Council of the European Union | Unanimity | QMV | 201b TFEU |
| European Court of Justice | Unanimity | QMV | 245, 224a, 225a TFEU |
| Freedom of movement for workers | Unanimity | QMV | 46 TFEU |
| Social security | Unanimity | QMV | 48 TFEU |
| Criminal judicial cooperation | Unanimity | QMV | 69a TFEU |
| Criminal law | Unanimity | QMV | 69b TFEU |
| President of the European Council election | (New item) | QMV | 9b§5 TEU |
| Foreign Affairs High Representative election | (New item) | QMV | 9e§1 TEU |
| Funding the Common Foreign and Security Policy | Unanimity | QMV | 28 TEU |
| Common defense policy | Unanimity | QMV | 28e TEU |
| Withdrawal of a member state | (new item) | QMV | 49a TEU |
| General economic interest services | Unanimity | QMV | 16 TFEU |
| Diplomatic and consular protection | Unanimity | QMV | 20 TFEU |
| Citizens initiative regulations | Unanimity | QMV | 21 TFEU |
| Intellectual property | Unanimity | QMV | 97a TFEU |
| Eurozone external representation | Unanimity | QMV | 115c TFEU |
| Sport | Unanimity | QMV | 149 TFEU |
| Space | Unanimity | QMV | 172a TFEU |
| Energy | Unanimity | QMV | 176a TFEU |
| Tourism | Unanimity | QMV | 176b TFEU |
| Civil protection | Unanimity | QMV | 176c TFEU |
| Administrative cooperation | Unanimity | QMV | 176d TFEU |
| Emergency international aid | Unanimity | QMV | 188i TFEU |
| Humanitarian aid | Unanimity | QMV | 188j TFEU |
| Response to natural disasters or terrorism | (new item) | QMV | 188R§3 TFEU |
| Economic and Social Committee | QMV | QMV | 256a TFEU |
| Committee of the Regions | Unanimity | QMV | 256a TFEU |
| Economic and Social Committee | Unanimity | QMV | 256a TFEU |
| The EU budget | Unanimity | QMV | 269 TFEU |
No one country has enough clout in the European Parliament to be able to block legislation, and no one country can block any matter subject to QMV in the Council of Ministers. I think that caution should be exercised as the EU of today is rather different from the EU that the UK left.
Not just a matter of “Ever Closer Union”, but also now a matter of ever increasing ability to override objection.
By all means develop further trade, research, educational, and defence links with the EU, but don’t rejoin something that one can’t control.
I guess we’ll need to fundamentally disagree. That’s like saying every decision should be taken by your local council and nothing by national government.
No need to be patronising.
1 Like
Isn’t Hungary, and possibly Slovakia, trying to disprove that?
1 Like
OK. No problem. After all, it is said that variety is the spice of life.
Also, my clarification of the word ‘competence’ used by the EU was not intended to be patronising ---- just factual. I apologise if you were offended as that was not at all my intent.
I think that is more at the Heads of State level rather than in the EU Parliament.
This thread certainly seems a rehash of the arguments ever since 2016, when at Waterloo Cameroon did surrender. Well, nearby.
My tuppence worth is - on the UK region front, I’d like to point out Scotland voted against brexit - and that didn’t count. A nation in a supposedly united kingdom. Not. UK = England. Simple. Colonists.
The other penny is the reference to local and national government versus national gov then EU. Some old stale argument that ever closer meant surrendering nationality I think. (Shades of Abba again, as Scottish I’m more than happy to give up the English nationality thank you.)
Local governments do not hold weapons of mass destruction (and hence the absolute power), only governments. And in the former EU, there were two. Now there is one. Give the recent NATO shenanigans, the EU might be more keen to reaccept a second nuclear power back into a common security fold.
4 Likes