to wonder if a second referendum is a good idea?

[brizzledrizzle]

The Sunday Times are running a headline that the PM's team are planning one. Part of me thinks it's a good idea, part of me thinks that the country has already voted and can't afford another referendum.

Brussels is just the headquarters of the EU civil service and does not have power.

The City of Birmingham employs more civil servants than the EU.

They should have voted in the first place

They did

The results found that 64% of those young people who were registered did vote, rising to 65% among 25-to-39-year-olds and 66% among those aged between 40 and 54. It increased to 74% among the 55-to-64 age group and 90% for those aged 65 and over. It is thought that more than 70% of young voters chose to remain in the EU

"Reasons my dad gave...undemocratic, too much power to Brussels, wants a hard border to stem immigration, is scared of us ending up like Greece etc...all valid points."

Because our Tory Government really listens to its people, which is why UC has been overturned and Austerity been scaled back.

Coupled with we know a hard border won't happen, none are valid points.

Change our election system to one person= one vote and the party with the most votes wins and I'd partly agree with the first one.

Merseyside needs a second vote. We are losing three major employers, some of the lady to pay a decent wage, because of Brexit.

We won't recover. The Torys don't give a shit about us, we were the hardest hit by the Cuts. When the Torys came to puwer, I knew we'd go back to the 80's, but we always had EU finding for our infrastructure, now we won't, our Region will fall apart.

We didn't get to choose the name of a Ship, but we can decide this, when many didn't realise what the EU did and others didn't realise the importance of the vote.

Plus many people have turned 18 and its their future we are deciding on. They should have a say. On this issue, we should lower the voting age to 16.

Notsurprisedatall " We don't get to vote on any of their decisions"

This is quite simply not true. I don't know why you would present as a statement of fact something that is incorrect.

Do you genuinely not know - in which case shame on you for not checking.
Are you just stupid? Or do you believe what you are told without checking.

Repeating lies makes you a liar.

The EU has 3 main institutions (leaving out the ECJ) the Council of Ministers which is elected and the European Parliament which is elected. The Commission is the equivalent to our civil service.

The Commission proposes legislation but it can not force it through it needs to be voted on by the Council and the Parliament.

Compared to the U.K. it is a well balanced system. The U.K. with its unelected second chamber and sever lack of checks and balances is significantly less democratic than the EU.

Check on line if you don't believe me but please stop telling lies.

We don't get to vote on any of their decisions and we don't get to vote any of the people who decide in.

Our PM sits in the European Council. Our Commissioner, nominated by the UK, sits on the European Commission, we all elect MEPs who vote on decisions.

They affect everything too from the watt of your bulb, to your hoover.

No they don’t.

Apart from EU immigration, the British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. The UK controls more than 98 per cent of its public expenditure.

If your dad thought Brexit was the key to stopping immigration then he really wasn't that well educated, at least on this subject. And even the fact that as a scientist he is anti immigration anyway seems quite odd.

I knew it wouldn't be long before someone mentioned light bulbs and hoovers.

Notsurprisedatall democracy does indeed exist in the EU. You do know that the energy-saving legislation to which you refer was proposed by the Commission, agreed by all 28 EU Member States (the UK were leaving lights in this process if you'll forgive the pun) and then the legislation was brought back to the UK to be scrutunised and amended by our parliamentary committee in the Houses of Parliament. We could have raised objections to the legislation at any time but in fact we were enthusiastic supporters. I can give you the references to the parliamentary reports summarising the committee findings if you give me five mins!

To characterise this process as legislation being imposed on us somehow and it being outside of the UKs control is utter bunkum and a complete misunderstanding of how the consensual system of creating EU legislation works.

Slightlycoddled

This link neatly demonstrates the legislative process:

www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/legislativeprocedure/default_en.htm

"The EU is too close to the final push of globalism. We don't get to vote on any of their decisions and we don't get to vote any of the people who decide in. They affect everything too from the watt of your bulb, to your hoover. "

Hilarious.

But yet again its the language of conquest and oppression to describe the EU when its not like that at all.

Thanks for link Buteo, wish it was part of national curriculum!

But yet again its the language of conquest and oppression to describe the EU when its not like that at all.

Yes. A bit like the Dufflepuds in Voyage of the Dawn Treader who were convinced that Coriakin was a tyrant, and nothing he did or said could persuade them otherwise.

So welcome Brexiteers, to your shortly to be realised dreams of freedom, milk and honey, and an England once again as England “should be”. “Sovereign” (it always was sovereign), and in control of its borders (it has always had control).

Just remember who you got into bed with to achieve your dreams however - Farage / Banks / Rees-Mogg / Boris / The Daily Mail.
Can you honestly say that any of those people are themselves honest and/or have the country’s best interests at heart?

What we have here is a government problem, not an EU one. Austerity and an unwillingness to apply the EU’s own rules to control freedom of movement when that was needed. They were too lazy, uncaring and focused as usual on their own gains and survival. Far easier to blame the EU than to engage properly with people and own up to their own failings.

Besides which it is quite clear that the main proponents of Brexit are a. keen to avoid new upcoming EU tax regulations and b. disaster capitalists waiting to make a killing.

Can I ask if anyone here is in favour of a European army, which the EU is now pushing for? Because I’m certainly not.

"Can I ask if anyone here is in favour of a European army, which the EU is now pushing for? "

The EU is not pushing for an EU army, but some member states want greater cooperation between countries on certain matters.

Its not an EU army, and the UK would always have had a veto on this as a member.

Seriously, the brexit crowd are showing their uninformed positions here.

An “EU army” was never going to happen whilst the UK was a member - under TEU any Member State can veto an EU ‘common defence’.

It could only happen when the European Council ‘acting unanimously, so decides’ and that decision needs to be ratified by Member States ‘in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.' For the UK, that would require a referendum, as set out in section 6(2) of the European Union Act 2011.

How many other countries might decide to exercise their veto?

@Birdsgottafly

Which employers are leaving Liverpool?

Poland would Veto, as would the Danish for sure.

And the EU’s proposals comprised a joint headquarters for EU military missions, common procurement to save on defence costs, a Defence Fund for the EU defence industry and the development of ‘permanent structured cooperation’. It did not propose merging armies to create a common army.

Article 46 of TEU sets out the process of structured cooperation: it’s set up by willing Member States only, so no Member State has to take part if it doesn’t want to. There’s no veto on setting it up, but that’s because participation is voluntary. Member States can join once it’s underway – and leave at any time, with no conditions attached.

It was part of the Leaver’s Project Fear - together with Turkey joining the EU

@IAteMyGrandma

If you don't want an EU army then you should have voted Remain so that we could have exercised our veto. Without us and our veto the chances of an EU army increases (it's still extremely unlikely) so we could be next to the EU and their army, swear to protect the interests of their member states, and we have territorial disputes with two of the member states.

@KennDodd
I did vote Remain.

The EU is not pushing for an EU army, but some member states want greater cooperation between countries on certain matters.

Not according to Angela Merkel.

“Jean-Claude Juncker already said that a common European army would show the world that there would never again be war in Europe.”

“We have to create a European intervention unit with which Europe can act on the ground where necessary. We have taken major steps in the field of military cooperation, this is good and largely supported in this house. But I also have to say, seeing the developments of the recent years, that we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day.”

Merkel’s words are just a vision, nothing more, and a reaction to Trump’s threats towards NATO.

And I pointed out above that under TEU, every member state has to approve that unilaterally and in accordance with its own constitution.

Apologies, that should be:

under TEU, every member state has to approve that unanimously and in accordance with its own constitution.

That sounds like common sense to me. What is wrong with the forces of different countries within the EU with similar (vaguely Christian social democratic values) cooperating to defend themselves? I honestly don't understand the hysteria over this.

Different strands of different European armies already cooperate regular under the UN.

Resources for own defences have been cut drastically, leaving us with minimal cover.

Do we really want to have to rely on Trump to bail us out?

As for Turkey joining (the other monstrous "objection") one only needs a cursory knowledge of international affairs (or to look at a BBC half-hour documentary) to know that Erdogan is currently turning east not west.

Ahh, citing one politician for what the rest of the EU would do.

The act of a cowardly and inept argument.