[Politics] Brexit

[daveinprague]

It was a joke because they don't have hardly any immigration at all. Good for them.

Despite the EU? How can that happen? Do they have sovereignty?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Despite the EU? How can that happen? Do they have sovereignty?

All I did was posted a link about manufacturing, and tried to make a joke about migration to CZ. It's all got far too serious. This stuff has been spoken about a billion times as well.

 

[Baldseagull]

Juncker/Tusk etc are not elected by the people of the EU. They have enormous power. The commission are the ones who draft legislation which the MEPs vote on. The MEPs don’t draft legislation.

There is a huge difference between that and the UK, so to say that the EU is more democratic shows a complete lack of understanding of how the structure works.

The EU has a goal to be a superstate, a United States of Europe. No nations per se, just a single entity where national governments become irrelevant to all intents and purposes. This is why so many leavers voted out - yet remainers just want to say it’s down to racism. It’s incredible how little so many people know about the whole set-up/project.

With the EU the Project is everything. Irrespective of the harm done to citizens, nothing can stand in the way of the project.

Now, you may not agree with that, but when remainers go on about racism, thick, old white people making dumb decisions, that is so far from the truth. Yes, some people will have voted for racist reasons. Some will have voted remain because of Project Fear.

The temporary impact of leaving even with No Deal is a price many feel is worth paying. We may not like our politicians, but we get the chance every 5 years to choose again. We’ve gone from Labour, to Tory/LibDem coalition and now Tory governments. That is democracy. The EU suffers from a severe demoratic deficit.

Whereas in our system, if a seat is won by Labour say, with a massive majority, and five other seats are won narrowly by the Tories, Tories get 5 seats even if across the six seats Labour were the most popular choice. At least the representation in the EU that we have is a fair representation of the parties that gained significant vote numbers. It is a different democratic system, it is democratic, we can argue about which of the two is most democratic, but given that Democracy means rule by the people, the one that reflects closest the choices of the people, as a whole, and can not swung by gerrymandering would seem to have an advantage to me.

 

[larus]

Whereas in our system, if a seat is won by Labour say, with a massive majority, and five other seats are won narrowly by the Tories, Tories get 5 seats even if across the six seats Labour were the most popular choice. At least the representation in the EU that we have is a fair representation of the parties that gained significant vote numbers. It is a different democratic system, it is democratic, we can argue about which of the two is most democratic, but given that Democracy means rule by the people, the one that reflects closest the choices of the people, as a whole, and can not swung by gerrymandering would seem to have an advantage to me.

In general, our system usually has the most popular party in power. The boundary commission are doing work to standardise the seat sizes I believe as, in recent times, the seat sizes have favoured Labour. Less votes required per MP.

In regards the EU, we vote for MEPs. The commission and Presidents are not elected by the voters. That's the main area of contention when people complain about the lack of democracy and bearing in mind the power of Juncker/Tusk (for example being at the G7), then these positions should be elected.

Oh yeah, and insisting on re-runs of referendum when the votes go the wrong way.
And also, not being open about the ultimate goal of the EU, which is the destruction of the nation state and the imposition of a superstate with parliaments eventually being little more than rubber-stamping town-halls.


But apart from that, yeah, they're really democratic.

 

[Baldseagull]

As I no longer live in Kent I have no idea.They have had ample time to plan for any eventuality,what KCC are actually paid to do.Even when we lived there thirty years ago,the various French unions,fishing,farming and transport,frequently caused problems,so it's hardly a new scenario.There are plenty of lorry parks around Calais for the backed up traffic which would mainly be on their side of the Channel.Remainers have taken great delight in telling us how much the EU export to us,so it's not just our problem.

As if you ever had any idea.

 

[Baldseagull]

In general, our system usually has the most popular party in power. The boundary commission are doing work to standardise the seat sizes I believe as, in recent times, the seat sizes have favoured Labour. Less votes required per MP.

In regards the EU, we vote for MEPs. The commission and Presidents are not elected by the voters. That's the main area of contention when people complain about the lack of democracy and bearing in mind the power of Juncker/Tusk (for example being at the G7), then these positions should be elected.

Oh yeah, and insisting on re-runs of referendum when the votes go the wrong way.
And also, not being open about the ultimate goal of the EU, which is the destruction of the nation state and the imposition of a superstate with parliaments eventually being little more than rubber-stamping town-halls.


But apart from that, yeah, they're really democratic.

In the EU there is no "whipping" from the Commission, they just do not have anything like power over the MEP's, that a Prime minister or even opposition leader has over their MP's, only the MEP's pass legislation, no unelected body can reject their decision, unlike in the UK. The method for MEP's getting things in their agenda into the thoughts of the commission is through Non legislative reports and debates in Parliament, the commissions job is to listen to the Parliament and Council (the heads of the national governments) and craft legislation to address the matters raised.

In the UK, the leaders of the Parties are not selected by the voters, they are selected by their parties. Therefore the PM, is not directly selected by the people, certainly not in how Theresa May first got the role, and has a hell of a lot more power over the UK Parliament than the EU President has over the EU parliament.
Labour allow the membership to vote for a person from a list nominated by enough labour MP's.
Conservatives currently need 2 MP's to nominate, and only the MP's vote.

Please give me an example of when the EU has insisted on a member redoing a referendum.
Please provide evidence that the ultimate goal of the EU is the destruction of the nation state and a "imposition" of a superstate.

 

[Baldseagull]

I understand what you are saying but disagree with some of your conclusions. The integrity of the UK cannot be undermined by Brexit. I’m not saying that NI cannot choose to leave and join a united Ireland if it chooses to in the future, but there is no way that a portion of the UK can be ring-fenced during the Brexit negotiations. Also, just because this is what the EU/ROI want, we don’t know if that is what NI would choose.

Yes, the UK are leaving the EU. I accept that it is something which we have caused but you have not answered my original point as to trade between the UK and EU will be subject to WTO rules if there is no deal. If that is the case, then do you accept that, if we have to police our border in NI, then the same MUST apply to the EU for the ROI?

This is the point I am trying to make, yet no one on the remain side seems to want to reply. I assume because the remain side can see clearly that it is the EU who must police their border, and if they say they won’t erect physical infrastructure (as Watford Zero keeps on saying we have to), then they would also be in breach of WTO rules.

That is the point - any breach would be by the UK and the EU.

Yes, the EU would require Ireland to enforce a border with the UK eventually, if we make it necessary by leaving without a deal, and don't get something sorted. The EU has not said it will not have a border if we leave without a deal and do not honour the fall back agreement, just that it is supporting it's member Ireland by not accepting any future trading arrangements with the UK that would require them to have one there.

 

[drew]

In general, our system usually has the most popular party in power. The boundary commission are doing work to standardise the seat sizes I believe as, in recent times, the seat sizes have favoured Labour. Less votes required per MP.

In regards the EU, we vote for MEPs. The commission and Presidents are not elected by the voters. That's the main area of contention when people complain about the lack of democracy and bearing in mind the power of Juncker/Tusk (for example being at the G7), then these positions should be elected.

Oh yeah, and insisting on re-runs of referendum when the votes go the wrong way.
And also, not being open about the ultimate goal of the EU, which is the destruction of the nation state and the imposition of a superstate with parliaments eventually being little more than rubber-stamping town-halls.


But apart from that, yeah, they're really democratic.

And the problem with that system is the unrepresentative way that Parliament is made up following an election. PR is considerably more democratic than first past the post. However, two main protagonists in the country don't want it as it would dilute their perceived power. We lurch from one political ideology to another.

 

[Baldseagull]

So we seem to be in some sort of agreement. There won’t be a hard border even in the event of No Deal.

The EU have already said to ROI that there won’t have to be a hard border.

If we fall out on WTO terms, then there is provision for “no infrastructure” on 2 grounds (from what I’ve read and I accept that you say this is open to debate/challenge).
First, if there are political reasons.
Second, if there are negotiations to agree a FTA.

I think there will be some form of agreement to allow one of these 2 options to be adopted.

One other point. Even if EU/UK are in breach of WTO rules, a case needs to be brought to the WTO and these take years to get resolved. By the time it gets to being resolved, there will be some trade agreement. We need to be realistic here. The UK/EU are currently aligned and so much of what is going on is posturing. This may result in a No Deal initial outcome, but that doesn’t mean discussions stop. This will only focus minds in the UK and also in the member states who will be losing out from the lack of a trade deal with the UK.

Too much is read into the public statements coming from both sides and I’m sure lots more is going on behind the scene than is made public. But I honestly don’t fear No Deal - yes, there will be disruption, but companies/governments adapt fast when necessary. We are still the worlds 5th largest economy, so if the EU wanted a trade deal with Canda, then they will want one with us.

No, you have this wrong. We have said we will ensure one won't be necessary, we had to, to move forward with negotiations, if we go back on that and make it necessary, there will be one. If we leave without a deal N.I. stays in the customs union, if we stick to our word, and the DUP will have a fit because N.I. will have a border with the rest of the UK that needs to be marshalled.

 

[larus]

No, you have this wrong. We have said we will ensure one won't be necessary, we had to, to move forward with negotiations, if we go back on that and make it necessary, there will be one. If we leave without a deal N.I. stays in the customs union, if we stick to our word, and the DUP will have a fit because N.I. will have a border with the rest of the UK that needs to be marshalled.

In the original agreement, it stated that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. It was all very vague just to get something signed to “move onto the next phase”.

There is no way that NI will be in a separate customs agreement to the rest of the UK. Never going to happen and, if TM was even to hint at that, many remain supporting Tory MPs would be ready to oust her. It’s called the Conservative and Unionist Party. Allowing a border between NI and the rest of the UK would be seen as a first step towards NI being part of a united Ireland.

As I said before, if they wanted that and voted for it, then that’s fine. But there’s no way the Remain vote can be viewed as being a vote for an internal border to the rest of the UK. BTW, much more of the NI trade is within the UK compared to ROI.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

He said he wants to manufacture in the UK, that's all that matters doesn't it?.

With respect: 'no' it's not all that matters. He needs markets - and if he is targeting Japan then it's possible that it might be harder outside the EU than in it. (I thought that was quite relevant on a Brexit thread,) But let's hope he does well.

 

[larus]

And the problem with that system is the unrepresentative way that Parliament is made up following an election. PR is considerably more democratic than first past the post. However, two main protagonists in the country don't want it as it would dilute their perceived power. We lurch from one political ideology to another.

I agree that PR would be a fairer representation. I assume that you’d have been happy for UKIP to have had Circe 100 MPs when they achieved about 15% in the election.

In regards ‘lurching’ from one political ideology to another.
The last true left-wing government this country had was in 1979 before Thatcher. This was a right-wing government. Once she was removed by Major, who was centre-right, the politics in this country have been fairly stable in reality. All governments have been business friendly, centrist type governments. For example, Bliar/Brown never increased corporate/personal taxation too high (only to 50% from 40% on income tax) and were actively engaged with the City.

Now there is a real left-wing opposition. If they get in then I would agree there would be a huge change in politics. Renationalisation, higher taxes, huge spending, etc.

This country has not voted in a left-wing party since Oct 1974, so I would disagree with your view that we lurch between ideaologies. Policies change, even when new leaders/ministers get elected - that’s vastly different from a different doctrine.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I must have missed it.When did the EU Parliament and all the member states approve the trade agreement with Japan coming in to force?

You know the answer: not yet. But it's you boys who keep talking about the longer term benefits of Brexit and this (Japan) might well be a case where it looks worse in the long term than it does in the short term.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

So we seem to be in some sort of agreement. There won’t be a hard border even in the event of No Deal.

The EU have already said to ROI that there won’t have to be a hard border.

If we fall out on WTO terms, then there is provision for “no infrastructure” on 2 grounds (from what I’ve read and I accept that you say this is open to debate/challenge).
First, if there are political reasons.
Second, if there are negotiations to agree a FTA.

I think there will be some form of agreement to allow one of these 2 options to be adopted.

One other point. Even if EU/UK are in breach of WTO rules, a case needs to be brought to the WTO and these take years to get resolved. By the time it gets to being resolved, there will be some trade agreement. We need to be realistic here. The UK/EU are currently aligned and so much of what is going on is posturing. This may result in a No Deal initial outcome, but that doesn’t mean discussions stop. This will only focus minds in the UK and also in the member states who will be losing out from the lack of a trade deal with the UK.

Too much is read into the public statements coming from both sides and I’m sure lots more is going on behind the scene than is made public. But I honestly don’t fear No Deal - yes, there will be disruption, but companies/governments adapt fast when necessary. We are still the worlds 5th largest economy, so if the EU wanted a trade deal with Canda, then they will want one with us.

I sort of agreed with some of your points until I came to the last 2 sentences wherein you default to some rather over-optimistic Leaver rhetoric which looks less convincing with each passing month. No deal is very, very bad news in all sorts of ways. (I doubt if Parliament would sanction it.)

However, just like 99.9% of the discussions we all have, 'we'll see' is probably as sensible comment as one can make.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

This is all extremely important stuff for everyone in the country, MP's are split and furious.
But not that furious as it only seems important enough to be furious when they are not on a 6 week holiday.
Ok there have been a few bits and pieces in the summer, but where has Rees Mogg, Boris and the other hard Brexiteers been.
As soon as they reappear from doing F all for the past 6 weeks they will start it all up again.
This also goes for May and her cronies too.
Ok some may have liked the break from it, but time is running out, tick tock and all that bollox.
The negotiations and debating should have continued through the summer rather than sunning themselves on the French Riviera.

 

[Gwylan]

In the UK, the leaders of the Parties are not selected by the voters, they are selected by their parties. Therefore the PM, is not directly selected by the people, certainly not in how Theresa May first got the role

That's not quite true: May was selected by her party but that's only because other candidates dropped out. If someone had stood against her, it would have gone to a vote of the members.

And it's certainly not true of Labour, that's decided by a vote of the members ... and Corbyn polled more than 70%

However, in his original post, Larus was also wrong when he said that Tusk and Juncker are unelected. The former was elected by MEPs in July 2014, by quite a healthy majority. Tusk is also elected, but it's a small electorate as the President of the European Council is chosen by heads of government of the EU countries. However, that's a larger electorate than the leader of the Liberal Party has. Do you want to say that Vince Cable is unelected?

 

[Two Professors]

As if you ever had any idea.

Ah,bless.Did you bang your head,trying to tie your laces again?Nanny kiss it better for you.

 

[Two Professors]

You know the answer: not yet. But it's you boys who keep talking about the longer term benefits of Brexit and this (Japan) might well be a case where it looks worse in the long term than it does in the short term.

Totally underwhelmed that a trading bloc with little or no natural resources signs an agreement with a big industrial nation with no natural resources.The future is trading with resource-rich countries at lower technological/industrial levels,not swapping cheese and rice.

 

[Baldseagull]

That's not quite true: May was selected by her party but that's only because other candidates dropped out. If someone had stood against her, it would have gone to a vote of the members.

And it's certainly not true of Labour, that's decided by a vote of the members ... and Corbyn polled more than 70%

However, in his original post, Larus was also wrong when he said that Tusk and Juncker are unelected. The former was elected by MEPs in July 2014, by quite a healthy majority. Tusk is also elected, but it's a small electorate as the President of the European Council is chosen by heads of government of the EU countries. However, that's a larger electorate than the leader of the Liberal Party has. Do you want to say that Vince Cable is unelected?

In all cases, it is the parties that choose their leader, not the wider electorate, is the point I was trying to make. Tusk was elected by the Council, but Juncker was elected by the Parliament. Larus didn't say they were unelected, he said they were not elected by the people, which is true, but is also true of various parts in UK Government that hold significant power. The head of our system is there by birthright, for life.

 

[Gwylan]

Juncker was elected by the Parliament. Larus didn't say they were unelected, he said they were not elected by the people, which is true, but is also true of various parts in UK Government that hold significant power.

Well OK, but that's also true for pretty much most countries. Germany and Italy's PMs are not voted by the people either. And Australia seem to swap PMs with great regularity without any input from the electorate.