UK Votes to Leave EU

a reply to: elysiumfire

Within the EU principle sovereignty remains with nation states (as demonstrated by the fact of the referendum). Some sovereigntyis pooled on order to work better within issues that require cooperation across Europe.

I entirely agree that sovereignty should lie with the people (an important principle in Scots legal principle but not the UK incidently).

But sovereignty has to be pooled at some level to work. This is why we have different levels of government (local/devolved) as decisions are made best at different levels.

Before you get all misty eyed about sovereignty remember that North Korea is a sovereign nation. It dosent make it accountable to its people.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Another spurious argument.
The treaties demand eu law take precedence, a failure to enact an eu law will result in fines etc being levied on that country.
Government money isn't free, it comes from the taxes the people pay.


Within the EU framework it is utterly impossible to vote for someone who can change or introduce a law.
That's one of the most fundamentally important rights in a democracy, without it we are powerless.

Anyone thinking it's ok that a population is unable to vote the executive in or out needs to read Tom Paine and some of the other writers who helped frame the principles of democracy.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: ScepticScot

Another spurious argument.
The treaties demand eu law take precedence, a failure to enact an eu law will result in fines etc being levied on that country.
Government money isn't free, it comes from the taxes the people pay.


Within the EU framework it is utterly impossible to vote for someone who can change or introduce a law.
That's one of the most fundamentally important rights in a democracy, without it we are powerless.

Anyone thinking it's ok that a population is unable to vote the executive in or out needs to read Tom Paine and some of the other writers who helped frame the principles of democracy.

You seem to be answering points that I haven't raised, where have I said that government money is free or the EU law doesn't take precedence. (although government money in the UK doesn't really come from taxes but that is really off topic).

The commission is the one that proposes laws as its role is to make sure that laws are applicable and fair to all European countries. This was actually meant as a measure to reduce the influence of larger countries as the expense of smaller ones. I agree it is not a great system but it does not make the EU a dictatorship.

I unfamiliar with where Paine wrote about the role of supranational bodies if you like to give a reference I would be glad to read it.

In the UK private member bills make up only a tiny proportion of our laws and generally only have a chance of passing if the government of the day doesn't object. Our executive branch (cabinet) is not directly elected in the UK either but is effectively appointed by parliament. The majority of its members are also elected MPs however this is a convention rather than a rule and is less to do with democratic principles than MPs wanting to keep the best jobs for themselves.

I agree that the commons is more accountable however this is a result of representing a smaller population and the vastly greater media attention. The actual structure of the UK government is fat less democratic than most European countries or the EU itself.

The point is that as part of the EU we (The people who pay the taxes) are just unrepresented.

Even if the EU changed to make commissioners directly electable, we would still lack representation.

To give one, simple example.

Fishing rights, the UK has the right to 20% of the catch in it's own territorial waters.
Say we voted for a commissioner (Which we currently can't do anyway) who promised to fight to raise that allowance and secure jobs from Cornwall to Orkney in hard hit towns and villages.

That is one vote in the commission, against that is a vote from the French commissioner and the Spanish one who have no choice but to support their own industry. The same is true of the Dutch commissioner.
Next you have the German, who will realise that he or she needs to back the French one because they rely upon them to support their own plans down the line.
The Italian one will have to support the Spanish commissioner due to requiring their aid when is comes to dealing with issues of separatism.

It goes on.

The end result is that we can do NOTHING to change the fate of even a small number of people within our own borders. Yet we still get taxed.

That is the central problem.

I don't hate the people of Europe, not one bit, I do hate the system that takes away my ability to effect change in how my own life is lived.

If you want an analogy, It's like Westminster imposing the poll tax on the Scottish people first, despite their protests and despite the no votes of their MP's.





ETA Tom Paine merely wrote about how people deserved to govern themselves and not be subject to having law imposed upon them by people that they didn't elect. A theme that really does apply here.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Not sure fishing quotas are best example as fish not recognising international borders seems to me to be something best dealt with at an EU level rather than by individual governments,. That said I understand your point but you have to remember that works all ways for all countries. It is just as likely that it is Spain or Germany that is outvoted as the UK.

The question to me seems to be what issues are best resolved at what level. I agree that the EU has become over centralised but throwing our toys out the pram and leaving all together seems a poor response.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SprocketUK

Not sure fishing quotas are best example as fish not recognising international borders seems to me to be something best dealt with at an EU level rather than by individual governments,. That said I understand your point but you have to remember that works all way for all countries. It is just as likely that it is Spain or Germany that is outvoted as the UK.

The question to me seems to be what issues are best resolved at what level. I agree that the EU has become over centralised but throwing our toys out the pram and leaving all together seems a poor response.

True, it can hit any particular country, that's kind of the point. The people in Germany or France or Spain or anyone of the 23 other EU member states all pay tax and they are entitled to representation by their elected Mp's.

They just aren't getting it.

It's hardly throwing toys out of the pram to pull back from such a system.
More a recognition that it does not and cannot ever work as a way of letting people take control over the system that governs them.



Fish may not know borders, that's why territorial waters are recognised.

It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

So how do you explain this then..

An astonishing shoal of 500 of them were spotted in British waters last month. So it was only a matter of time before the nation’s anglers began hooking bluefin tuna. Chris Bett, 50, ended up in an epic four-hour struggle after a monster 500lb tuna went for his bait during an expedition off the west coast of Wales. Ironically, it came just days after he drew a blank fishing for tuna off Madeira. Then angler Mike Steer caught a 300lb specimen using a rod and line in the same waters. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231370/Hooked-British-waters-75-000-notch-tuna-500lb-monster-caught-epic-four-hour-battle.html]Source[/u rl]

British Boats may not be allowed to catch them, but there is nothing to stop British Anglers going out and catching them. Catching Tuna is not the same as catching Cod...Different net sizes and techniques are required and i doubt very much British boats are equipped or even interested in Tuna that happen to swim into our waters every hundred years or so.

Even if British boats did decide to try and catch them the fish would have buggered off long before they could refit the boat out for that particular species. Tuna are chasing the Mackerel or some other bait fish. They dont tend to hang around too long.

I'm sure it's not as Simple as, Eh, You're British, you cant Catch Tuna. There has to be a reason for that ruling.? I'm Sure Spanish, French, Belgian, Dutch etc etc have rules on on what they can and cant catch also.

Ps. They say 500 fish?... It's not like a fisherman to exaggerate now is it.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

Remember hes not good with big numbers

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

Remember hes not good with big numbers

The 2 year old bounces in with his opinion again.

Greece: population 10 million
Scotland: Population 5 Million
And yet you have Greece as some sort of equal with Scotland in regards to GDP...?
Numbers might not be your strong point either by the looks of it.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

So how do you explain this then..

An astonishing shoal of 500 of them were spotted in British waters last month. So it was only a matter of time before the nation’s anglers began hooking bluefin tuna. Chris Bett, 50, ended up in an epic four-hour struggle after a monster 500lb tuna went for his bait during an expedition off the west coast of Wales. Ironically, it came just days after he drew a blank fishing for tuna off Madeira. Then angler Mike Steer caught a 300lb specimen using a rod and line in the same waters. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231370/Hooked-British-waters-75-000-notch-tuna-500lb-monster-caught-epic-four-hour-battle.html]Source[/u rl]

British Boats may not be allowed to catch them, but there is nothing to stop British Anglers going out and catching them. Catching Tuna is not the same as catching Cod...Different net sizes and techniques are required and i doubt very much British boats are equipped or even interested in Tuna that happen to swim into our waters every hundred years or so.

Even if British boats did decide to try and catch them the fish would have buggered off long before they could refit the boat out for that particular species. Tuna are chasing the Mackerel or some other bait fish. They dont tend to hang around too long.

I'm sure it's not as Simple as, Eh, You're British, you cant Catch Tuna. There has to be a reason for that ruling.? I'm Sure Spanish, French, Belgian, Dutch etc etc have rules on on what they can and cant catch also.

Ps. They say 500 fish?... It's not like a fisherman to exaggerate now is it.

You can't equate sport angling with commercial fishing. Two different things. For instance, the EU has made it a crime for a pleasure angler to keep any sea bass he or she may catch while allowing a factory ship to haul up 500 tons of the things at a time.

Like I said before, just no sense at all.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
I voted to leave the EU for a number of reasons, mostly all abstract and ideological. Britain was taken into the EU by stealth, and that alone raises an important principle, add to the fact that to be a member of the EU, a country has to cede sovereign power to it, and this raises probably the most important principle, yet somehow, over 16 million Britons either ignored it or didn't care about it, and this is what made the whole thing wholly incomprehensible to me.

The principle I am talking about is the power of the people, which should always remain in the hands of the people. It is from the people as whole, as a nation, from which authority is derived, and whereby law also derives its authority by consensus. This principle isn't just important for Britain, it is important for every country that sees itself as democratic. If the people do not have the nation's power of authority in their hands, then it is not and cannot be democratic. By the people holding the power of authority and grant that power to entrusted individuals through election, a nation holds itself together and abides by the result which the majority determines.

Hundreds of thousands of our own compatriots have fought and given their lives to ensure future generations can enjoy the democratic process and forever keep politicians accountable for how they manage the country. With the EU, there is neither election or accountability, and to be a member the people lose some or all of the power that is rightfully theirs to hold and keep.

If a country gives over sovereignty to the EU, what would be the point of holding an election, what would be the point of politicians in your own country? They are obviously defunct and redundant, because they have no power to wield, because the people's power has been siphoned off and given to the EU. If Britain had voted to remain in the EU, Britain would have become nothing more than a vassal state to the intended EU superstate, with no accountability for how the EU would treat Britain. Am I the only one who saw the danger in this. If it is not democratic, it can only be a tyranny.

Then there is the open border issue and free movement. I want to see highly regulated and highly controlled immigration. I don't want any Tom, Dick, or Harry, turning up on British shores. If people from other countries want to immigrate into Britain, let them do so educated, and possessing skill sets we badly need. We don't need people from other countries who can only pack and carry a box, or sit at a desk assembling things, we have many of our own people unemployed who can do that. Only by retaining sovereignty can a country control its own borders.

At the next general election here in Britain, the people need to look at their member of parliament. Did he or she want to remain in the EU, and all which that entailed? If so, we need to oust them out of office, every single one them, because in truth, and by their ideological contradiction, they cannot be trusted to serve for the British people. So, let's get rid of them, just on these principles alone.

Why would you cede power to the EU, and then stand solemnly at the many cenotaphs or war graves? It's a contradiction, and a lie, and hypocrisy. You cannot say you respect those real heroes, when you give away everything they fought for. That is betrayal of them and their memories.

Normally, I wouldn't quote a long post and just say "I agree!". However, in this case I just had to.

Incidentally, I was browsing YouTube a couple of nights ago and came across a few video's of how America viewed the Brexit vote. One was a news story, the other from a known conspiracy guy (I'm sorry I don't have links but they are simple enough to find). What they had in common was a view to saying it was a huge decision and well made. It went against the grain of the fat controllers and elitists (and yes, the TBTB and the NWO).

Now, I wouldn't know much about that, but the point I'm trying to make is that there now must be some people in all EU countries thinking about their own exit. If that's so, I wonder where it will all end.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

Remember hes not good with big numbers

The 2 year old bounces in with his opinion again.

Greece: population 10 million
Scotland: Population 5 Million
And yet you have Greece as some sort of equal with Scotland in regards to GDP...?
Numbers might not be your strong point either by the looks of it.

Your really not getting it are you old boy?

The bigger population gives Greece more economic clout.

A country could be made up of millionairs but if that country only has say 20 people it will have less economic clout than Angola.

Its why China dwalf the world economically, not beacuse there people are wealthy but because there is over a billion of them.


Your confusing individual wealth of a population with overall wealth of a country.


Your just embarrassing yourself now

a reply to: SprocketUK

Under International Law (not EU law), territorial waters extend a maximum of 12 nautical miles (roughly 13 miles by land) from the low water tide mark of a territory. So anything 30 miles away wouldn't be in "our" territoral waters anyway.

Besides which, we also share the North Sea and the English channel with other nations. In some parts of the channel, that would mean we share "our" territory with France. And how would that work in the Irish Sea?

The fact is, other EU nations fishing fleets have to operate under the same laws as ours do. Sometimes this inevitably brings them into conflict with our fishing industry. By the same token though, our fleets head off to the Faroes.......correct me if i wrong but i always assumed that the Faroe's were Norwegian, not British?

Our fisherman always moaned about the cod restrictions. Well the cod restrictions were based on observed scientific data on dwindling cod numbers in the North Sea. Quotas were introduced and the end result is that now cod numbers are thriving again - that seems to be a perfectly reasoned action that has ended with the targeted result. Yes, it hit the industry hard which is never a nice thing to see or to live through but the end result is that we now have decent cod levels again. Over fishing was a huge problem. You could forward a perfectly reasonable argument that if they had self regulated in the first place, there would have been no need for EU interference down the line.

Nail in the coffin of UK citizen rights as UN finally publishes damning report of 70 crimes against humanity the UK government is committing on its citizens from lack of abortion, forced slavery, starvation, poverty, denying disalbled the right to existence and many more....the report certainly doesn't pull any punches.

What a great time to abolish all Human Rights in the UK.

www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: SprocketUK


It wasn't long ago that there was a multi billion dollar tuna school off Cornwall. British boats were prevented by EU law from catching any of the things, whilst French and Spanish boats were allowed free rein. How is that either just or even sensible?

Daft rules are a direct result of not being able to elect the executive.

Prove it..Last i heard it was a shoal of "possibly" 500 fish. Hardly a billion dollar catch.

Point is, they weren't allowed to fish for the tuna at all. Where's the sense in that? How is it good for the environment to stop boats 30 miles away from catching fish, but allowing boats from hundreds of miles away to burn tons of fuel to catch them?

And with an individual tuna going for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, how big does the school need to be?

Remember hes not good with big numbers

The 2 year old bounces in with his opinion again.

Greece: population 10 million
Scotland: Population 5 Million
And yet you have Greece as some sort of equal with Scotland in regards to GDP...?
Numbers might not be your strong point either by the looks of it.

Your really not getting it are you old boy?

The bigger population gives Greece more economic clout.

A country could be made up of millionairs but if that country only has say 20 people it will have less economic clout than Angola.

Its why China dwalf the world economically, not beacuse there people are wealthy but because there is over a billion of them.


Your confusing individual wealth of a population with overall wealth of a country.


Your just embarrassing yourself now

Why Greece.? Why would you choose Greece as a yardstick in which to measure Scotland..I have my own thoughts on why you chose Greece. Let's here yours.

originally posted by: bastion
Nail in the coffin of UK citizen rights as UN finally publishes damning report of 70 crimes against humanity the UK government is committing on its citizens from lack of abortion, forced slavery, starvation, poverty, denying disalbled the right to existence and many more....the report certainly doesn't pull any punches.

What a great time to abolish all Human Rights in the UK.

www.scribd.com...

Perhaps with some people on here the penny will finally drop why certain faction in the political establishment want out of the EU. No doubt we will hear from a few in here that this report is just sour grapes from the EU when the reality is, The British government has been under investigation for Human rights abuses for well over two years now.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Because its the nearest size EU economy to Scotland in terms of overall economic weight.

Im sorry but Scotland is not in the same league as Germany, France or even Italy in terms of economic influence.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: SprocketUK

Under International Law (not EU law), territorial waters extend a maximum of 12 nautical miles (roughly 13 miles by land) from the low water tide mark of a territory. So anything 30 miles away wouldn't be in "our" territoral waters anyway.

Besides which, we also share the North Sea and the English channel with other nations. In some parts of the channel, that would mean we share "our" territory with France. And how would that work in the Irish Sea?

The fact is, other EU nations fishing fleets have to operate under the same laws as ours do. Sometimes this inevitably brings them into conflict with our fishing industry. By the same token though, our fleets head off to the Faroes.......correct me if i wrong but i always assumed that the Faroe's were Norwegian, not British?

Our fisherman always moaned about the cod restrictions. Well the cod restrictions were based on observed scientific data on dwindling cod numbers in the North Sea. Quotas were introduced and the end result is that now cod numbers are thriving again - that seems to be a perfectly reasoned action that has ended with the targeted result. Yes, it hit the industry hard which is never a nice thing to see or to live through but the end result is that we now have decent cod levels again. Over fishing was a huge problem. You could forward a perfectly reasonable argument that if they had self regulated in the first place, there would have been no need for EU interference down the line.

24 miles then...big deal. The fact remains that the UK retains 20% of fish in our waters while a whopping 80% goes to foreign fleets under EU rules.
So tell me, how is that just, fair or even remotely sensible?

Sure we need quotas, but how does the UK end up with 20% of the quota for our own waters? In what universe does it make any sense to destroy the economy of entire towns on our coasts just to let others burn more fuel to come and scoop up the fish?