Brexit Referendum Superthread

Conas

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Again

*they did*

Here's them having debates live on tv (they had 3 in total I think in the run up to the elections):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes

They went and campaigned and most of europe did infact vote in the european elections with in mind of who their candidate was.

Clearly people watched it because according to the articles it did trend at the time in both the UK and ireland on twitter:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/twitter-wins-at-maastricht-presidential-debate/

There is no difference in how the european commission president got elected then how the US president gets elected in terms of process.

I never seen any of them canvassing the streets of Ireland. I never seen any of their names or faces on my ballot paper in the voting boot. They should have no influence in the political affairs of this state

The US President is on the ballot paper, and the American people can choose between the Republican or Democratic candidate. The European citizens have no such direct choice.

CMOTDibbler

Conas wrote: »

I never seen any of them canvassing the streets of Ireland. I never seen any of their names or faces on my ballot paper in the voting boot. They should have no influence in the political affairs of this state

The US President is on the ballot paper, and the American people can choose between the Republican or Democratic candidate. The European citizens have no such direct choice.

You seem to have lost some cognitive ability since your last post. Friday beers?

Conas

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You seem to have lost some cognitive ability since your last post. Friday beers?

No, If I drink it tends to be on a Saturday night. I try to increase the GABA levels in my brain in natural ways these days, instead of using alcohol which is only temporary.

K-9

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You seem to have lost some cognitive ability since your last post. Friday beers?

Hey, there's no need for that.

The point is that when you vote in European elections you aren't just voting for FG/FF etc., you are also voting for the European political groupings they belong to. It's something that comes up at EU election time but not enough weight is given to it.

FG are in the EPP, FF Liberal and Labour the Socialist grouping. So you do have a vote, that it seems most people aren't aware of that is down to lack of awareness and/or publicity.

Bob24

K-9 wrote: »

Hey, there's no need for that.

The point is that when you vote in European elections you aren't just voting for FG/FF etc., you are also voting for the European political groupings they belong to. It's something that comes up at EU election time but not enough weight is given to it.

FG are in the EPP, FF Liberal and Labour the Socialist grouping. So you do have a vote, that it seems most people aren't aware of that is down to lack of awareness and/or publicity.

The problem with this though is that groups in the European Parliament are very unclear about their political orientations because they can contain national parties with very different views.

For example FG and Labour here are not that far from each other as they can govern together. But if you vote for FG in European election you are voting for a group which is hosting Viktor Orban's party (often described as a far far populist). While if you vote for Labour you are taking about a group which contains people with ideas not far from AAA in Ireland (for example hard left members of the French socialist party, who could be described as far left populists).

So at they end of the day it is very difficult to know what kind of policies you are really voting for.

micosoft

Conas wrote: »

I never seen any of them canvassing the streets of Ireland. I never seen any of their names or faces on my ballot paper in the voting booth. They should have no influence in the political affairs of this state

You haven't seen the Taoiseach on your ballot paper either unless you are in Mayo and even then you are not voting for them as Taoiseach but simply as a TD.

Conas wrote: »

The US President is on the ballot paper, and the American people can choose between the Republican or Democratic candidate. The European citizens have no such direct choice.

Not true. The US presidential candidate never appears on a ballot paper. The American people vote for a College of Electors who then vote for the president.

oscarBravo

Conas wrote: »

They should have no influence in the political affairs of this state

You keep stating this as if it's some sort of truism, but the fact that you personally think they should have no influence don't make it so.

Their position of influence in the political affairs of this state is a direct result of the several EU treaties which the people of this state have voted to ratify. You don't have to like that, but you equally don't get to unilaterally say that it shouldn't be so.

Conas

micosoft wrote: »

You haven't seen the Taoiseach on your ballot paper either unless you are in Mayo and even then you are not voting for them as Taoiseach but simply as a TD.

But at least the Taoiseach is an Irishman, running in an Irish Election, to represent Irish people. The same cannot be said for the EU commission.

In the grand scheme of things Ireland to the likes Juncker, and the rest of the EU elite, is no more relevant than a fly on the wall. I just don't agree with them speaking on behalf of ALL European nations, with regards to Russian sanctions, Migration, and other issues. Brussels mindset for the nations of Europe is 'We'll set the policy here, and you'll tow the line'.

I hope you can get the crux of what I'm trying to say.

Conas

oscarBravo wrote: »

You keep stating this as if it's some sort of truism, but the fact that you personally think they should have no influence don't make it so.

Their position of influence in the political affairs of this state is a direct result of the several EU treaties which the people of this state have voted to ratify. You don't have to like that, but you equally don't get to unilaterally say that it shouldn't be so.

True, if it comes across that I'm saying it 'should be so' then that's certainly not my intent. But you are right the people of the state did vote for these treaties.

130Kph

Inquitus wrote: »

But even implementing Leave is complicated, there are soo many mutually incompatible concepts at play

• Free movement of people
• Access to the EEA

If we just take the 2 basic concepts above, the 2 are fairly firmly intertwined, given the leave vote seems to have been propelled to victory on the back of anti-immigration feeling, whilst equally most people still wanting tariff free access to the EU market, how does the UK go about having their cake and eating it? You cannot have one without the other, do the voting people realise this? The UK could probably get a Norway like deal, which in essence would essentially be a worse deal than the one they just rejected, as they would have to contribute to the EU Budget without having a say in it, accept free movement of people, which they say they don't want, in order to access the EU Market which I think all of them realise is the key to future prosperity.

I believe the leave argument on this point is:- since the UK is a $3 trillion economy they are so big that (in an eventual deal) the EU will have to relent –to some degree- on their demand for free movement of people for continuing access to the single market.

It’s plausible (-ish) but seems to be a needless high stakes gambit (possibly due to wistfulness for former empire colonial power? and/or tabloid editorial EU fantasy?) which 17 million Brits were either ignorant of or didn’t concern themselves with.

BlitzKrieg

Conas wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things Ireland to the likes Juncker, and the rest of the EU elite, is no more relevant than a fly on the wall. I just don't agree with them speaking on behalf of ALL European nations, with regards to Russian sanctions, Migration, and other issues. Brussels mindset for the nations of Europe is 'We'll set the policy here, and you'll tow the line'.

I hope you can get the crux of what I'm trying to say.

except once again you are wrong.

Juncker cant say or do sweet **** all in the name of europe on those issues without prior approval from the european council.

despite the very popular belief that the commission can do whatever it wants.

It cant

The Commission can pass legislation as it wishes only in the areas that EU has been given full competence

which are as follows:

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

(a) customs union;

(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;

(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;

(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;

(e) common commercial policy.

2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.

You can probably see why fishermen tend to not like the EU.


But that aside, those are the only areas the Commission can make laws and juncker can speak for' all of us' without first clearing it with Enda Kenny and David Cameron and every other national leader.

This is hammered home by article 5 in the treaty of the european union

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.

4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.

The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

But before you furiously type about the situations where he has spoken or the commission has legislated in areas outside those...

Thats because the European Council (made up of our national elected leaders) and agreed by consensus to grant the Commission permission to legislate in those areas.

Based off paragraph 3 in the above quote. The member states agreed (all of them, including Ireland and the UK) that the Commission is become involved and legislate.

And yes it has to be consensus thats how the European Council works:

4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus

and those areas that provide otherwise is the election of the commission president and high representative and council president which are all done by majority vote.

So for examples Sanctions against Russia. European Council meeting, agreed by all member states. reforming policy on asylum seekers, European Council meeting, agreed by all member states.

Despite how hard people like to push the idea of some EU elite pulling the strings of the irish government you'll find the very top of the tower sits the leaders of our national governments all with equal say in terms of raw voting power.

Conas

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

and those areas that provide otherwise is the election of the commission president and high representative and council president which are all done by majority vote.

So for examples Sanctions against Russia. European Council meeting, agreed by all member states. reforming policy on asylum seekers, European Council meeting, agreed by all member states.

Despite how hard people like to push the idea of some EU elite pulling the strings of the irish government you'll find the very top of the tower sits the leaders of our national governments all with equal say in terms of raw voting power.

It sounds to me like the United States of Europe.

I don't really see a point in having a Dáil and being in the EU.

BlitzKrieg

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've lost me here. People tend to relocate to wealthier countries where they think they'll get a better quality of life. How would this be down to poor policies in the destination country?

I'm talking about surges of migration, and specifically a surge where its a large influx of workers into very specific industries. From what little I've looked into it, you tend to see it in areas where some sort of industry bubble has formed as its being propped up by some policy or support from the government.

BlitzKrieg

Conas wrote: »

It sounds to me like the United States of Europe.

I don't really see a point in having a Dáil and being in the EU.

well then you are confused on two sides

if you think its like a united states of europe then you already know why there needs to be a Dail considering even the united states has state houses and governmental offices outside the federal government.

if you actually understood what I explained in terms of the EU being an inter-governmental body then you'd know that for most part the Dail does what the Dail wants to do and the EU is only involved in the areas already agreed in the treaties or when the Dail feels a situation cannot be handled on a purely national level.

I'll also point out agreeing to have the commission legislate in an area does not mean the national governments then sit back and let the EU do all the work. They are still involved in the legislating process both as The Council of the European Union and depending on the type of law when they are legislating it themselves on a national level.

wes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why, exactly, do you want Farage/ Johnson to govern?

I don't want them to govern, just making a point that there not fit to do so, as per you know the lack of planning or any follow through on Boris's end.

murphaph

Conas wrote: »

It sounds to me like the United States of Europe.

I don't really see a point in having a Dáil and being in the EU.

You do know all the united states have their own state legislature? The states however have significantly less control than the national parliaments of the EU.

Sam Russell

Conas wrote: »

But at least the Taoiseach is an Irishman, running in an Irish Election, to represent Irish people. The same cannot be said for the EU commission.

In the grand scheme of things Ireland to the likes Juncker, and the rest of the EU elite, is no more relevant than a fly on the wall. I just don't agree with them speaking on behalf of ALL European nations, with regards to Russian sanctions, Migration, and other issues. Brussels mindset for the nations of Europe is 'We'll set the policy here, and you'll tow the line'.

I hope you can get the crux of what I'm trying to say.

Merkel and Hollande are national politicians who have no electoral position (wrt to an Irish electorate) within the EU but are hugely influential at EU level. That is the political scene in Europe and in the world. No-one in Europe have any influence on Putin's election but are affected by his actions.

mansize

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:

Should Britain:

Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%

Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

Yikes

CMOTDibbler

mansize wrote: »

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:

Should Britain:

Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%

Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

Yikes

That's going to be a very difficult circle for the government to square.

Sam Russell

mansize wrote: »

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:

Should Britain:

Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%

Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

Yikes

That means that 48% plus 52% of 18% = 57% of voters favour EU immigration with 66% of 52% = 34% against.

Not that bad.

How many farmers are willing to give up the Single Farm Payment?

What percentage of tourists and Ex Pats are happy to lose the E111 card?

Suryavarman

mansize wrote: »

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:

Should Britain:

Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%

Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

Yikes

"The leave vote had nothing to do with immigration"

Bob24

Sam Russell wrote: »

That means that 48% plus 52% of 18% = 57% of voters favour EU immigration with 66% of 52% = 34% against.

Not really: your assumption that 100% of remain voters support free movement + common market is incorrect.

See the full figures on page 10 here: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/newsnight-post-referendum-poll-charts-2016.pdf

If you ask the question to remain voters, only 67% say they support keeping free movement of EU citizens to remain in the common market and 16% even say they think free movement should be stopped even if it means losing access to the common market.

If you look at all the figures and apply the same logic you did, you have:

Keep free movement to preserve access to the common market: 51.9% * 18% + 48.1% * 67% = 41.57%
Remove free movement even if it means losing access to the common market: 51.9% * 66% + 48.1% * 16% = 41.95%
Don't know: the rest = 16.48%

It is really tight and will be a headache for whichever government comes next ...

Edit: also it is worth noting the figures above are ignoring the opinions of people who didn't vote. According to the document if you take those on board you get 42% keep / 38% remove / 20% don't know so a 4% lead to keep the common market + feee movement, but given by people politicians might not care much about because they don't tend to bother voting.

Sam Russell

The ECC was set up to prevent further wars in Europe following two ruinous world wars with Germany and France on opposite sides. This it has succeeded in.

It was also set up to prevent the starvation in Europe that followed the two world wars - this it has also succeeded in (and hence the emphasis in the EEC in the common agriculture policy).

It also set out to equalise the wealth across the EEC by introducing the regional development fund. This has benefited Ireland greatly and allowed us to move from 60% relative GDP to about 100%.

Those three aims have all been successful.

The single market is a child of the EU, as is the Euro and as is Schengen. I think it is early days to pass judgement on those.

The UK has always been semi-detached with respect to Europe and always considered themselves non-European. They have lost a lot - whatever happens. If they choose to ignore the Brexit vote, they can hardly kick up their usual fuss about bent bananas and other made-up stuff, and if the follow through with it, we will miss their usual fuss like a hole in the head.

KindOfIrish

mansize wrote: »

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:

Should Britain:

Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%

Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

Yikes

Why English hate EU migrants so much? Almost all of their cities and good few towns have been taken over and transformed by immigrants from former colonies and i haven't seen a single protest. As for EU migrants, you don't even see them because they work around the clock and second generation of EU migrants totally assimilated and indistinguishable from the local population.

Conas

Sam Russell wrote: »

Merkel and Hollande are national politicians who have no electoral position (wrt to an Irish electorate) within the EU but are hugely influential at EU level. That is the political scene in Europe and in the world. No-one in Europe have any influence on Putin's election but are affected by his actions.

No one in Europe have any influence on the American presidential election either, but are affected much more by their polices than that of Mr Putin.
The devastating migration crisis, and the threat now being posed by ISIS came from overthrowing Gaddafi and then abandoning Libya thereafter. Then there was the Iraq war, and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein over imaginary non-existent nuclear weapons that he never had. Then ISIS and other radical extremists were able to fill the void because of such disastrous policies. The responsible parties being the US executive branch from 2001 to the present day, and their lacky's in Britain and France.

I don't agree with the anti-Putin rhetoric being circulated over the last few years. Even during Brexit Cameron sought to bring 'Russian aggression' and Putin into it. If you really looked at the route cause of the migration crisis Europe is facing, and the ISIS threat, it's willful ignorance to say Russia is an equal threat

No more than post-9/11 naming North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as the 'axis of evil', when 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked America were from Saudi Arabia, and Bin Laden was a Saudi. Yet Saudi Arabia was omitted.

BlitzKrieg

Bob24 wrote: »

The problem with this though is that groups in the European Parliament are very unclear about their political orientations because they can contain national parties with very different views.

For example FG and Labour here are not that far from each other as they can govern together. But if you vote for FG in European election you are voting for a group which is hosting Viktor Orban's party (often described as a far far populist). While if you vote for Labour you are taking about a group which contains people with ideas not far from AAA in Ireland (for example hard left members of the French socialist party, who could be described as far left populists).

So at they end of the day it is very difficult to know what kind of policies you are really voting for.

I missed this yesterday

You do know the European Parties produce commitments and manifestos right?

You can go to their website and download them

for example

here's the EPP: http://www.epp.eu/ (Fine Gael)

The ALDE http://www.aldeparty.eu/en (fianna Fail and Liberal Democrats)

The AECR http://www.aecr.eu (tories, UUP)

European United Left/Nordic Green Left http://www.guengl.eu/ (sinn fein)

and the PES http://www.pes.eu/ (uk/irish Labour)




So there really is simply a matter of common ground that national parties can agree on a european level (or in the case of the tories quitting EPP and signing up with AECR a much smaller vague ground).

Yes Fine Gael and Fidesz might be quite far apart on a national level, but they both signed off on these commitments on a European level.

I dont know if you were a member of fine gael if you can challenge the party's membership of EPP, was it a vote to join or does the manifesto need to get signed off. It'll be an interesting question

I do know that is the case with both the european green and PES parties and I am pretty sure it is the same with GUE/NGL.

Bob24

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I missed this yesterday

You do know the European Parties produce commitments and manifestos right?

You can go to their website and download them

for example

here's the EPP: http://www.epp.eu/ (Fine Gael)

The ALDE http://www.aldeparty.eu/en (fianna Fail and Liberal Democrats)

The AECR http://www.aecr.eu (tories, UUP)

European United Left/Nordic Green Left http://www.guengl.eu/ (sinn fein)

and the PES http://www.pes.eu/ (uk/irish Labour)




So there really is simply a matter of common ground that national parties can agree on a european level (or in the case of the tories quitting EPP and signing up with AECR a much smaller vague ground).

Yes Fine Gael and Fidesz might be quite far apart on a national level, but they both signed off on these commitments on a European level.

I dont know if you were a member of fine gael if you can challenge the party's membership of EPP, was it a vote to join or does the manifesto need to get signed off. It'll be an interesting question

I do know that is the case with both the european green and PES parties and I am pretty sure it is the same with GUE/NGL.

Looking at the EPP manifesto, the points seem either hollow or vague enough to accommodate many interpretations.

For example hollow on health or education:
• Health and wellbeing are essential to our happiness as well as opportunities for participation in society. This does not only depend on material goods and it must, therefore, always remain in the central focus of our policies.
• We must constantly improve our education systems, focusing both on knowledge and skills, and we must promote research and innovation more efficiently and make it more useful. Mobility, languages, adult learning and creativity will have to be encouraged in the professional world as well as in education more than they have previously been.

Is there any party/voters which couldn't sign-up for these very generic principles?

And vague on immigration:
• Our common Immigration and Asylum Policy has to be further strengthened, striking the right balance between finding the talents we need, helping victims of political and religious persecution and fighting irregular migration.

With this Orban can say he doesn't want any refugees/migrants in the EU because they enter illegally, and at the same time Merkel can say she wants millions as she wants to help victims of persecution and attract talents. Two completely opposite immigration policies within the same group, but not in contradiction with the manifesto.

BlitzKrieg

I cant really help you when it comes to the EPP on that front, centre right promises and commitments always sounds vague to me regardless of who is saying it nationally or internationally, its always feels like "speak softly but carry a big stick" sort of talk (i know I butchered the quote but its late).

But I will say you did sort of sell immigration a small bit short as there were a further 2 paragraphs after the segment you quoted

We have to reinforce the Europe of citizens, ensuring that they can enjoy their rights within an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. This means we have to reinforce the free movement of citizens, to protect their security, to reinforce external border control, based on solidarity between Member States, to fight effectively against crime, corruption and irregular migration and to enhance the cooperation between police and judicial authorities.
• We want to contribute to the successful integration of immigrants, which entails not only rights but also obligations on their part. Immigrants have to respect our core values, human rights and the rule of law.

Still vague enough though you can argue both sides but it does seem to slightly lean in favour of Orban as it pushes external border control and solidarity which merkel went against.

Bob24

I don't really agree with your point saying it is vague because it is centre right.

Look at the FG manifesto: 140 pages with details and specific examples of what they want to do in practice. Nothing like the 8 pages of vage ideas of the EPP one.

To me there is a clear reason for that: the EPP one is written so that pretty much any party can adhere to it (bar maybe the far left) and there is not an specific point the group could be made accountable for.

If you look at the one from the PES, I will agree it makes their ideology a bit more clear but again it is just a few pages and very high level: the EPP one is a meant to cover any party from the far right to the centre, that one can cover the far left to the centre.

That's going back to my original point: if you vote for a national party which is part of a group in the European Parliament you don't really know what the policie of that group will be, because as opposed to a national party which has a clear enough direction, these groups are just collections of parties with various political ideologies and it is not clear which one dominates. (As you rightly mentioned: if as an Irish citizen you voted for FG/EPP in the previous European election, you would have expected something on immigration which is closer to Orban than Merkel. But you are actually getting the opposite and no one can be held accountable by you the Irish voter: FG will rightly tell you they are powerless once the CDU decides something and the CDU is only accountable to its German voters, not to Irish ones).

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

To me there is a clear reason for that: the EPP one is written so that pretty much any party can adhere to it (bar maybe the far left) and there is not an specific point the group could be made accountable for.

But if there were specific goals you'd have people moaning about things being forced on countries in an undemocratic manner.

Anyway, I just stumbled upon this open letter by Professor Chris Grayling about why the invocation of Article 50 must be voted down in parliament.

https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/2016/07/01/professor-c-graylings-letter-650-mps-urging-parliament-not-support-motion-trigger-article-50-lisbon-treaty-1-july-2016/