Crisis for Cameron & the Conservatives.

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Er, no! Quite the opposite. Are you suggesting that Switzerland do?

That's exactly the EU arrangement with Switzerland and the EEA countries - how else could they access the EU single market?

 

[User removed 4]

Sorry I can't put it in your language, but I never studied 'mong'.

Just leave the jokes to people that are good at it eh? There's a good chap

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

And the point I was making is that there isn't really any practical difference (vis a vis the relevant EU market legislation) between us and the Swiss - we too have to adopt it. Plus we have to adopt all the other 'stuff' as well. And if, as I stated, it's not our 'turn' on the streamlined Commission we won't even have a say in forming the legislation! (Don't forget there is no legislative programme as such in the EU parliament, it simply debates whatever the Commission decides).

So assuming we HAD to adopt the Swiss model and couldn't negotiate our own position, then yes, I accept the conditions. Not ideal obviously but it would be, imo, the lesser of the two evils.

The decision-making process at the EU level involves various European institutions, in particular

The Council of the European Union comprising the elected government representatives (ie ministers) from each of the member states

The European Parliament (EP) elected by the EU citizens

The European Commission (ie the "Civil Service" of the EU)

The European Commission proposes new legislation, it does not decide it; the Council and Parliament pass the laws although in some cases, the Council can act alone. It is not the role of the Commissioners, who head up the various branches of the Commission, to promote a particular national interest as you seem to contend.

Decisions on legislation are reached by one of three routes:
Codecision (shared equally between the Council and EP)
Assent (Council has to obtain EP approval)
Consultation - I think this is restricted to Agriculture, Taxation and Competition - (The EP can approve, reject or request amendments to the proposal)

 

[beorhthelm]

Decisions on legislation are reached by one of three routes:
Codecision (shared equally between the Council and EP)
Assent (Council has to obtain EP approval)
Consultation - I think this is restricted to Agriculture, Taxation and Competition - (The EP can approve, reject or request amendments to the proposal)

in practice this means that all the parliament can do is approve/reject any legislation (dont know how robust the "request amendment" process is, last time i read somthing about it, it was just ignored by the Council). No legislation can be initiated in the parliament. When there is a conflict, the Commision/Council trump the parliament.

EU democracy in action: a few years ago a commision member from Spain was found to have her fingers in the till. the parliament moved to dismiss her in a very widely supported move, but found they had to sack the entire commission to remove her. some did indeed go ahead with that process, where upon it was resoundly voted against.

corrupt and inefficient, and we in the UK worry about a few 10k expences while they run up tabs of millions.

 

[Brovion]

The decision-making process at the EU level involves various European institutions, in particular

The Council of the European Union comprising the elected government representatives (ie ministers) from each of the member states

The European Parliament (EP) elected by the EU citizens

The European Commission (ie the "Civil Service" of the EU)

The European Commission proposes new legislation, it does not decide it; the Council and Parliament pass the laws although in some cases, the Council can act alone. It is not the role of the Commissioners, who head up the various branches of the Commission, to promote a particular national interest as you seem to contend.

Decisions on legislation are reached by one of three routes:
Codecision (shared equally between the Council and EP)
Assent (Council has to obtain EP approval)
Consultation - I think this is restricted to Agriculture, Taxation and Competition - (The EP can approve, reject or request amendments to the proposal)

I am aware of how the EU is supposed to function, why do you think I'm opposed to it? The whole thing is structured arse about face - the legislation is introduced by the Civil Servants (as you rightly called them) and then debated by the Parliament, as you know in Britain the legislation is debated in parliament and THEN passed to the civil servants to implement. Hence my other argument that if there is something that we, the people want passed (or repealed) we cannot do it like we do for Westminster, by voting for the party whose legaslitive programme we approve of, we just have to 'hope' that the unelected commissioners (all appointed by political patronage with no regard to suitability) will intoduce it for us. The whole thing is little more democratic than England was in the reign of Charles I.

Add that to the snouts in the trough (which make our expenses scandal look like chicken feed), the fact that British law is secondary to European law, the central bank, the joint army, the (unelected) President and so on and you can see why the Swiss option of waiting for a fax from Brussels to turn up and implementing the various trade regulations is a preferable alternative.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I am aware of how the EU is supposed to function, why do you think I'm opposed to it? The whole thing is structured arse about face - the legislation is introduced by the Civil Servants (as you rightly called them) and then debated by the Parliament, as you know in Britain the legislation is debated in parliament and THEN passed to the civil servants to implement. Hence my other argument that if there is something that we, the people want passed (or repealed) we cannot do it like we do for Westminster, by voting for the party whose legaslitive programme we approve of, we just have to 'hope' that the unelected commissioners (all appointed by political patronage with no regard to suitability) will intoduce it for us. The whole thing is little more democratic than England was in the reign of Charles I.

Add that to the snouts in the trough (which make our expenses scandal look like chicken feed), the fact that British law is secondary to European law, the central bank, the joint army, the (unelected) President and so on and you can see why the Swiss option of waiting for a fax from Brussels to turn up and implementing the various trade regulations is a preferable alternative.

"...as you know in Britain the legislation is debated in parliament and THEN passed to the civil servants to implement"
Not the majority - can't say I've ever heard of a Statutory Instrument (probably written by civil servants btw) ever being debated at Westminster?

EU Single Market = "various trade regulations" - is that all?

 

[Brovion]

"...as you know in Britain the legislation is debated in parliament and THEN passed to the civil servants to implement"
Not the majority - can't say I've ever heard of a Statutory Instrument (probably written by civil servants btw) ever being debated at Westminster?

EU Single Market = "various trade regulations" - is that all?

Ah you're wriggling now and trying to hide behind procedure. You knew what I meant, but just to explain neither of us in a few sentences on a message board can explain all the ins and outs of how Westminster or the EU work but surely you can accept the principle? That in a parliamentary democracy the civil service is there to do parliament's will and not the other way round?

And re your second point, again we have to deal in broad brush strokes, but if you like you can susbstitute 'various trade regulations' with 'relevant EU legislation' (your words) Can't see that it makes a huge difference and my preference remains unchanged.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Ah you're wriggling now and trying to hide behind procedure. You knew what I meant, but just to explain neither of us in a few sentences on a message board can explain all the ins and outs of how Westminster or the EU work but surely you can accept the principle? That in a parliamentary democracy the civil service is there to do parliament's will and not the other way round?

And re your second point, again we have to deal in broad brush strokes, but if you like you can susbstitute 'various trade regulations' with 'relevant EU legislation' (your words) Can't see that it makes a huge difference and my preference remains unchanged.

Not wriggling, just seeking to point out an inaccuracy in your "broad brush" statement on UK Parliamentary procedures.
UK Civil Service - yep I think that should be one its roles.
"Various Trade Regs" doesn't seem to adequately cover the legislation required to ensure free movement of capital, goods, people and services imo but if you want your government to have no say in this then fine.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The electorate should be given a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not as otherwise we will be absorbed into a United States of Europe. The outcome of the 1973 referendum led us to joining the European Economic Community and at the time it was promoted that boosting trade with mainland Europe would make us less reliant on the Commonwealth and the rest of the world which would lead to better prosperity and stability. Voting "YES" in 1973 was on one major issue - Trade , now the former EEC has transformed into monster known as the EU we need to re-consider.

 

[Brovion]

Not wriggling, just seeking to point out an inaccuracy in your "broad brush" statement on UK Parliamentary procedures.
UK Civil Service - yep I think that should be one its roles.
"Various Trade Regs" doesn't seem to adequately cover the legislation required to ensure free movement of capital, goods, people and services imo but if you want your government to have no say in this then fine.

I maintain it wasn't a material 'inaccuracy' in my argument, which was a couple of sentences about the basis of parliamentary democracy and not having the tail wag the dog. So in a 'broad brush' sense it WAS accurate and I do think waffling on about the procedural detail of how business is conducted in parliament and how laws are enacted is you trying to muddy the waters a bit.

And yes, I accept that being free of the EU beauracratic machine and federalist project but still a part of the trading bloc will almost certainly mean that we have to accept legislation that we have had no say in framing. For me that is a price worth paying, obviously you take the opposite view.

"They can take our tariff reforms but they can never take our freedom!"

 

[looney]

Albania? North Korea?

I see what you did there.

This isn't about isolationist, backwards dictatorships run by psycopaths but free trade nations.

 

[beorhthelm]

"...as you know in Britain the legislation is debated in parliament and THEN passed to the civil servants to implement"
Not the majority - can't say I've ever heard of a Statutory Instrument (probably written by civil servants btw) ever being debated at Westminster?

Statutory Instuments themselves are not primary legislation though, the ability for a minister to create and use them is provided for by an Act being passed (so subject to scrutiny and vote) and they can be overruled by Parliament too.

it might not be the case in practice, but in the UK Parliament has first and final say over all law - even the Queen is head of state by act of Parliament. Unlike the EU where an unelected and unaccountable committee run the show, supported unably by a legion of civil servents that spend as much time moving between the two seats of the EU as they do on actual work.