Hi guys,

I've snuck in from the Canada forum to see what's being discussed regarding the EU referendum.

I mailed my voter registration form to Kettering this week. I last lived there in 2005. I'm very keen not to miss out on my opportunity to vote on the issue.

Sarah

I'm trying to find out how to make an effective vote: voting papers are mailed out too late for overseas voters to get them back in time, usually. And we don't know anyone now in our old UK area to make a proxy.

Hi Wol,

Our ballot papers arrived one week to the day before the UK General Election in 2015. They just made it back to Kettering in time.

Mail to the UK from Australia would take longer I imagine. I hope you can dredge up someone in the UK who will make the journey for you to do a proxy vote in your old manor.

I was thinking of making my parents do the proxy vote, but they're in Wiltshire and it's a couple of hours to Kettering, Northants. So I'm sticking with the mailed ballot.

Cheers,

Sarah

(In Canada!)

Don't forget, Auspost have gotten significantly more sh*t since then.

You'd have to leave at least 2 week nowadays, judging by the late arrival of birthday cards.

Why they couldn't allow pre-voting at the commission, then bundle up and courier to the UK makes no sense to me. Well, actually, not allowing online voting make no sense. Blockchain is more secure than slips of paper.

They're probably too busy counting the scanned and copied votes in Rotherham to be concerned, anyway.

I have to warn other readers that I'm about to very loosely explain how EU legislation is drafted so at this point I'm recommending several No Doz washed down with Red Bull or just skipping this post if you are happy you understand the legislative process or actually are satisfied that this isn't really an issue.

The College of Commissioners (who are all appointees from a national government, much like Lords but without the hereditary peerages and a fixed number of seats) take advice from a range of governments and organisations (in much the same way a Parliamentary select committee would at a national level) as well as national governments on what legislation to put forwards for deliberation. Legislation is then sent to both the European Council where national governments can offer input to any proposal and the European Parliament where your locally elected MEP can also make clear their position on the draft proposals. The committee representing the College of Commissionaires will then debate and vote on any draft (which is a formal check and balance on draft legislation). Then the legislation then goes forwards to plenary debate where MEPs will either opt to adopt a law or send it back for further amendments (much the same function as Lords provides at a national level). However the draft isn't law yet because it goes off again to the European Council who can either adopt it or send it back to MEPs to make amendments. Either way MEPs will have to have a second reading to enact, reject or amend the resulting legislation. If they vote to enact...then it can move on to the Conciliation to hash out a text that's actually acceptable to both the national governments (representing themselves via the European Council) and EP within six weeks. If no compromise is reached Between the EC and EP then the legislation is rejected but if it is then accepted MEPs again get to vote in a third reading but no further amendments can be made. Hopefully this has clearly elaborated on why I don’t see the EU as fundamentally undemocratic and articulates why think most of those who do often appear so ignorant to the rest of us. From a personal perspective I want to avoid an unproductive cyclical and binary conversation boiling down to “Yes it is” or “No it isn’t” and actually properly open this issue up to debate.

So I guess my criticism of the EU is that it's much too fair and democratic and slow, it lacks the executive power required to pass legislation in an expedient fashion because there is far too much consultation and national governments have too much power to block, veto and opt out of legislation to act effectively as a federal government even when that would be highly beneficial. Power is still much too devolved to national governments.

Would I change things? Sure as said above I'd prefer it if the College of Commissioners where directly elected in a revolving manner on very long terms (much akin to US senate representatives) rather than participatory but national governments would object because it would give the EU more importance and power in national politics. National governments fear that if they release a hold over the EU they will be sidelined.

However there are many things I'd change about the UKs legislative and electoral systems given the chance but clearly this isn't a high priority for UK right now. We examine the EU in great detail to avoid difficult questions at a national level about the state of the UKs archaic legislative and electoral systems which, I think it should be said, is remarkably convenient for those benefiting from current arrangements (Labour and the Conservatives for example).

Tell us how much scrutiny the *ELECTED* MEPs do on the thousands of pages of legislation that are proposed by the commission each year.

It doesn't matter how much spin you put on it, the EU system is at best unwieldy and incapable of reacting in timely manner (cf migrants etc) and at worst autocratic and intrusive to national interests.
.

That's because some people like yourself were living in some fantasy world in which the EU accounted for the majority of our immigration, whereas the truth is that each and every year the majority of people coming in are actually from outside the EU.

In other words: you're just following the tabloids and barking up the wrong tree.

I wish you were right though, I really do. I wish the majority of all incomers were actually from Europe and not from outside Europe. Honestly, I really do. Sadly my wishes are futile and most people flooding into Britain are non-Europeans.

So by all means, knock yourself out and have a ball. Vote against the EU and then those coming in from outside the EU will not just be the majority (as they are now) but the vast, humongous, overwhelming majority.

What an extraordinary conclusion!

The EU has conclusively shown itself to be incapable of preventing hundreds of thousands from Africa, Afghanistan and the rest getting across borders, potentially receiving passports and therefore being allowed entry into any EU country.

Whether an elected, UK government can now stop this mass immigration or not, at least the electorate will not be beholden to other countries' lax border controls.
.

Oh, but the UK government is already agreeing to share the burden, so those will be allowed in regardless. And will continue to be let in regardless of EU status or dinky-little-have-no-say-in-any-global-issues status.

You are talking about asylum seekers too, that is not the same as the majority of immigration that is flowing into this country which happens to be from outside the EU and which the gov't is knowingly letting in whilst they divert your attention towards Europeans.

You claim to have introduced the matter of immigration for my benefit yet you did not even know my point of view at that stage so should I add mind reader to your superior talents?

I quoted figures from the ONS; you don't agree with them. Tuff.
Not going over it again.....see post #65.

Whatever you're smoking, please feel free to share. Uhhhrrmmm, then again, maybe not...

I quoted migration statistics straight from the ONS. Not you.

You simply deflected the issue because it didn't suit your default, preset fundamentalist setting which would have overloaded your processor.

Instead you started looking at people's origins, not at migration. Personally I don't care about where people's roots are if they came over in the 1800s, 1900s or any other time. If they happen to be European, then GREAT.

As mentioned, I quoted ONS migration statistics and I suggest you do the same if it doesn't overload your logic board.

People have different attitudes I guess...

Okay, you choose to ignore post #65 so I'll assume silence is consent and you have no logical explanation. Means my ONS figures are as valid as yours.

Why is it that if someone states a different opinion you react with snide responses?

Did you learn that at play school?

Jeez, I can't believe you posted that here.

You have exhibited 6 of the 9 red ones on this thread alone.

Perhaps you should relax and watch some TV.