Brexit discussion thread IV

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

Edit - this is true for many countries including Ireland. We should be paying more attention to the calibre of politician that we send over to the EU rather than it being either a stepping stone of a retirement home. MEP should be held to the same accountability as TDs. What have you achieved, what groups are you part of, what policies do you stand for/against.

The system is OK. The people need to change. Would this be a fair summary of your position?

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

The system is OK. The people need to change. Would this be a fair summary of your position?

Close, but I suppose that what I am saying is that the people simply blame the system without taking any responsibility for their lack of engagement in that system. This, IMO, is one of the lessons from Brexit. The people weren't engaged, through a variety of failings including their own government and the EU, and therefore felt no connection to it. It is therefore not surprising that they feel the EU is not worth anything.

But they could easily have held their own representatives to account for what was going on in the EU. They continually cite that this is not the Europe they signed up for, as if it mysteriously changed in the middle of the night. Farage has been an MEP for how long, yet what has he achieved over there?

Does the system need to change, yes, but so do peoples attitude to it. The EU is not some distant land, something we hear about only when a bridge is built (or collapses as in the recent event in Italy). We should be engaged in it just as we are in terms of the elections we have over here

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they could easily have held their own representatives to account for what was going on in the EU. They continually cite that this is not the Europe they signed up for, as if it mysteriously changed in the middle of the night. Farage has been an MEP for how long, yet what has he achieved over there?

But their own representatives, the MEPs, only have a minor role. They are roughly one third of the overall legislative process of the EU. They can throw out legislation but they can't stop similar legislation being put to them later. They can't themselves introduce legislation. They effectively act as a brake but not a rudder.

The Parliament therefore operates as a moderating force on the Commission and the Council. The Commission are appointees of the national leaders and the Council are the national leaders themselves. Remember the point I made earlier was that there was an overall transfer of power from the people to the upper echelons of national government.

As such, it is understandable that the electorate may well use EU elections as a way to punish a national government or party. They don't have to, but the system is such that it can often make more sense for them to act in this way.

Now there may well be good reasons for the system as it is, but the question is whether or not there is an increase in democratic accountability for the ordinary citizen if their country leaves the EU.

Edit: added a few sentences for clarification.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

...the question is whether or not there is an increase in democratic accountability for the ordinary citizen if their country leaves the EU.

Sorry, but I still think the burden of evidence is one anyone who suggests this as a possibility. There's no inherent reason why a country outside the EU should have more democratic accountability than one in the EU.

Sure, the good citizens of the UK might suddenly decide to take their civic responsibility more seriously after they've left, but there's nothing whatsoever stopping them from doing so while still a member.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Remember the point I made earlier was that there was an overall transfer of power from the people to the upper echelons of national government.

Which powers are transfered from the people to the upper echelons of national government under EU membership, and which powers will be returned to the people in the UK as opposed to the upper echelons of their national government after Brexit? Please be specific.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Which powers are transfered from the people to the upper echelons of national government under EU membership, and which powers will be returned to the people in the UK as opposed to the upper echelons of their national government after Brexit? Please be specific.

Basically legislative power formerly the remit of national parliaments. My contention is that the ordinary citizen had more control over this legislation via the election of members of parliament than he or she does now under the EU system.


Again, this might be a necessary price for economic gain.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Basically legislative power formerly the remit of national parliaments. My contention is that the ordinary citizen had more control over this legislation via the election of members of parliament than he or she does now under the EU system.

Legislation is controlled by the national government because the national government can command majority support in the national parliament. The citizen has control over the legislative process, ie control over the national parliament and government, because of their ability to elect members to the national parliament. However, despite having control over the national parliament and government through election outside the EU, this control over the national parliament and government is somehow reduced inside the EU despite the continuing ability of the citizen to excercise control over the national parliament and government through elections. Have I missed something here? How is membership of the EU reducing the control of the citizen over their national parliament and government?

How does Brexit give the people any more control over their national parliament and government than they already have?

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Have I missed something here? How is membership of the EU reducing the control of the citizen over their national parliament and government?

Well what I said was:
"Basically legislative power formerly the remit of national parliaments."

This is what I think you missed.

The EU citizen still has much the same control over their national parliament but some of the legislative process has been transferred to the EU. As I said earlier, although there is an EU parliament, powers of this are lower than that of most national parliaments. See my response to Leroy42.

Akrasia

Bit cynical wrote: »

The system is OK. The people need to change. Would this be a fair summary of your position?

I think there is a lack of engagement with the european parliament because the EP doesn't really do that much really. The primary drivers of EU policy are the commission and the council of ministers. Each country elects their national government and those governments coordinate to drive EU policy through discussions between the relevant ministers.

While the European parliament have responsibility for drafting and approving EU legislation, the actual policy isn't really decided there, the legislation is proposed by the commission (commissioners appointed by each national government) and the council of ministers.

Leroy42

But who controls the council of ministers? The PM/President etc of the countries.

Has the movement in the EU been a national debate over the previous 20 years (beyond in party fighting?). Blair was in favour of Europe and made massive majorities. I am not saying that the EU does not need to re-engage, or maybe that should be engage, with voters, but this conversation stems from the question what positives would come out of Brexit and greater democracy was one of the answers.

So greater democracy in a country that has just seen a side of campaign found guilty of electoral fraud and nothing happens? And country that has seen almost every campaign slogan on the leave side shown as fairytales yet one of the main leaders is now in the running for the next PM?

Apart from giving the UK voters final veto over each and every decision, what exactly are people looking for? What exactly is TM promising the voters of the UK will change to bring about a fairer political system? What was the core problem, the thing that the EU was forcing on the UK government that lead to food banks and constant rail fare increases, a lack of housing and the fall off in the NHS? What EU policy lead to the stopping of police recruitment, of the allowing of zero hour contracts?

Capt'n Midnight

J Mysterio wrote: »

The UK will lose significantky more wealth in real terms by leaving the EU than they ever paid to it by being inside. Never mind the countless ancillary benefits and EU subsidies and supports which kept poorer regions of the UK afloat.

The UK has already lost 2.1% of growth relative to where they should be.

That's £440m a week of lost tax revenue.
That's a lot more than the Gross figure on the bus, nevermind the real lower figure.

Unless there is a deal the UK will face tariffs with it's main trading partner, the EU. To compensate for that they would have to vastly increase trade with third parties.

For services they'd have to compensate for vastly reduced EU access by wishful thinking. What if USA go "shields up" and India undercut them ?


Take into account that the EU has Free Trade Agreements with 70 odd countries, and other relations and deals with most of the rest and the UK has a lot of catching up to do.

Has any country said they'd allow the UK to keep the terms they already enjoy under EU deals ? Lots of countries have made hints about what they'd like from the UK , in a word CONCESSIONS.


Yes the UK will survive, but it won't be a walk in the park , especially for those on low incomes.

Spanish Eyes

Have they found a solution to the Irish Border issue yet?

The rest of it is precipice thinking, someone might blink first. Trump wants to get rid of WTO also, so good luck with that avenue UK going forward with no deal.

Personally, I think there will be a compromise. But it will have to be one that doesn't relegate the remaining members to second base. That could be problematic.

Anyway, am just rambling here, and others will have much more insight than I do.

Great thread just the same, with many informative posters. If only Leavers over there could read this and weep.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

But who controls the council of ministers? The PM/President etc of the countries.

Yes, basically the upper echelons: the prime ministers and senior ministers.

Has the movement in the EU been a national debate over the previous 20 years (beyond in party fighting?). Blair was in favour of Europe and made massive majorities. I am not saying that the EU does not need to re-engage, or maybe that should be engage, with voters, but this conversation stems from the question what positives would come out of Brexit and greater democracy was one of the answers.

So greater democracy in a country that has just seen a side of campaign found guilty of electoral fraud and nothing happens? And country that has seen almost every campaign slogan on the leave side shown as fairytales yet one of the main leaders is now in the running for the next PM?

That is correct. Just because one problem is solved doesn't mean others aren't remaining.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well what I said was:
"Basically legislative power formerly the remit of national parliaments."

This is what I think you missed.

The EU citizen still has much the same control over their national parliament but some of the legislative process has been transferred to the EU. As I said earlier, although there is an EU parliament, powers of this are lower than that of most national parliaments. See my response to Leroy42.

The point you seem to miss is that to the extent the citizen can control parliament, they also control the national government, which is merely a collection of mp's that command majority support in the national parliament. That same national government, which is held to account by the national parliament over which the citizen has control, is represented in the European Council, which is the driving force in the EU. The citizen is not merely represented by their MEP, but also by their national government in the European Council.

listermint

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The point you seem to miss is that to the extent the citizen can control parliament, they also control the national government, which is merely a collection of mp's that command majority support in the national parliament. That same national government, which is held to account by the national parliament over which the citizen has control, is represented in the European Council, which is the driving force in the EU. The citizen is not merely represented by their MEP, but also by their national government in the European Council.

I think you are confused.

See when you exit the EU you get your own local government and you as a citizen get enhanced democratic powers. So when you dislike a government decision you just post on twitter about how angry you are and the are out the following day thats how simple it all is. Sure it's direct power when the EU isn't involved no lead times in elections it's the power and will of the people

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The point you seem to miss is that to the extent the citizen can control parliament, they also control the national government, which is merely a collection of mp's that command majority support in the national parliament. That same national government, which is held to account by the national parliament over which the citizen has control, is represented in the European Council, which is the driving force in the EU. The citizen is not merely represented by their MEP, but also by their national government in the European Council.

However the national government in the European Council is only indirectly elected by the citizen. This, combined with the fact, as Akrasia points out, that the EU Parliament has reduced power compared with a national parliament means that there is less accountability overall in the process.

It does however work for the leaders themselves, the prime ministers and senior cabinet ministers. They have a way of getting legislation through which bypasses their own national parliaments. Sovereignty is pooled but also shifted upwards towards the top.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the national government in the European Council is only indirectly elected by the citizen. This, combined with the fact, as Akrasia points out, that the EU Parliament has reduced power compared with a national parliament means that there is less accountability overall in the process.

It does however work for the leaders themselves, the prime ministers and senior cabinet ministers. They have a way of getting legislation through which bypasses their own national parliaments. Sovereignty is pooled but also shifted upwards towards the top.

You realise the national government will still only be indirectly elected by the citizen once the UK leaves the EU?

So which is it? Please answer this question, does the citizen control the national government through their ability to elect MPs to parliament or not?

Either the citizen does control their national government in which case they also have control over the European Council, and the European Commission which is apointed by the national governents in the Council. Or, by virtue of the fact as you point out, that the national government (in the UK's case at least) is only indirectly elected by the citizen, the citizen does not have control of their national government. If you think this, then this problem remains once the UK has left the EU. All the powers which are returned from the EU come under the control of the national government.

Either way, the people do not gain any more power than they already have.

Imreoir2

listermint wrote: »

I think you are confused.

See when you exit the EU you get your own local government and you as a citizen get enhanced democratic powers. So when you dislike a government decision you just post on twitter about how angry you are and the are out the following day thats how simple it all is. Sure it's direct power when the EU isn't involved no lead times in elections it's the power and will of the people

It's honestly hard to tell if you are being scarcastic such is the quality of the discourse around these subjects.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You realise the national government will still only be indirectly elected by the citizen once the UK leaves the EU?

I am indeed endebted to you, but yes I realise that.

So which is it? Please answer this question, does the citizen control the national government through their ability to elect MPs to parliament or not?

The citizen elects the parliament. The parliament makes the laws.

This is the non-EU process in many EU countries.

Either the citizen does control their national government in which case they also have control over the European Council, and the European Commission which is apointed by the national governents in the Council. Or, by virtue of the fact as you point out, that the national government (in the UK's case at least) is only indirectly elected by the citizen, the citizen does not have control of their national government. If you think this, then this problem remains once the UK has left the EU. All the powers which are returned from the EU come under the control of the national government.

Either way, the people do not gain any more power than they already have.

The citizen has only partial control of the leaders of government. Rightly so, imo, because they are the executive, charged with day-to-day decisions. But to balance this, they don't have any veto power on legislation. They can influence the parliament through the whip system but they have no legal power over the process bar their own individual votes in the parliament. Thus the individual mps (who are directly elected) have considerable power and can amend legislation or even intruduce fresh legislation against the wishes of the prime minister (I'm using lower case here because I'm not talking specifically about any one country's system).

Why I think the EU system of legislation is attracive to senior politicians is that this that there's no equivalent parliament that can go against them. The most the EU parliament can do is slow things down. In this respect it is a bit like an upper house in the traditional bicameral parliament though in recent years the powers of the traditional upper house have been curtailed.

You would be correct if the national government (I'm thinking of that which is in direct control of the prime minister) made the laws (this is what I think you were suggesting) but that is not the case. They can influence legislation but when they initiate it they are doing so as ordinary members of parliament.

McGiver

Bit cynical wrote:

The system is OK. The people need to change. Would this be a fair summary of your position?

The electorate need to change!

Leroy42

Just thinking on the possibility of no deal. It is somewhat ironic that the legal case taken by Gina Miller is going to probably lead to a no deal rather than TM being able to push through a deal she might be able to achieve.

So what started out trying to ensure that parliament was able to ensure the best outcome of Brexit could now end up being the very factor that ensures it will the exactly the worst excessives that it was aimed at curbing.

Or am I being too simplistic

judeboy101

Just when I think I'm out they pull me back in again

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-back-in-politics-to-challenge-theresa-mays-brexit-11475417

badtoro

judeboy101 wrote: »

Just when I think I'm out they pull me back in again

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-back-in-politics-to-challenge-theresa-mays-brexit-11475417

Scores stopped him in the streets, how many hundreds told him to f off?

I'm glad he's back, perhaps he'll get a harder time this go around.

Igotadose

Anyone got a feel for the current status of the negotiations? It seems like, there's one last scheduled event for October, maybe something in September, and then that's it? One would expect a frenzy of activity on the part of the UK now, but all I'm seeing is a dribble of stuff about Hunt whining that the no-deal Brexit will be bad. Well, yeah, Brexit will be bad in any form, and that's the worst one. 2+ years of waffling with just a couple months left, and the last proposal (Chequers) was rejected by the EU and gutted by the Tories. Welcome to the WTO and a border in NI as well as in Ireland is what it seems like will happen without dramatic change. Am I right?

Is it all last-minute political gamesmanship to keep the interest up?

Leroy42

badtoro wrote: »

Scores stopped him in the streets, how many hundreds told him to f off?

I'm glad he's back, perhaps he'll get a harder time this go around.

First off, one has to admit and admire just how successful he has been. Almost single handedly he has taken the UK out of the EU, and it very much appears that in the process he has severely damaged the Tory party.

But he has been able to be the perfect hurler on the ditch. Having never been voting for into Westminster, he has been able to say whatever he likes knowing that he will never has to live with the consequences. He was able to use the platform of the EU to maintain his profile, a profile he used to take the UK out of the EU.

He continues to be disappointment with TM and how Brexit is being handled, yet has been unable to offer anything more advanced that she should be tougher. And now all he has to offer is to walk out with a no deal, when that was never on the cards and will place the UK at the whim of the WTO, which if they thought the EU was tough to deal with and undemocratic wait till they get a load of that.

Leroy42

Igotadose wrote: »

Anyone got a feel for the current status of the negotiations? It seems like, there's one last scheduled event for October, maybe something in September, and then that's it? One would expect a frenzy of activity on the part of the UK now, but all I'm seeing is a dribble of stuff about Hunt whining that the no-deal Brexit will be bad. Well, yeah, Brexit will be bad in any form, and that's the worst one. 2+ years of waffling with just a couple months left, and the last proposal (Chequers) was rejected by the EU and gutted by the Tories. Welcome to the WTO and a border in NI as well as in Ireland is what it seems like will happen without dramatic change. Am I right?

Is it all last-minute political gamesmanship to keep the interest up?

I have noticed that the stories in the press (or at least my interpretation of them) is that the ground is being laid for a deal, a significant climbdown by the UK.

No deal is utterly unacceptable, a total abdication of responsibility of behalf of all politicians. And it would massive problems to the UK economy, whether it leads to actual food shortages is open to debate, but in macro terms to economy is going to suffer, and that means people are going to suffer.

The only thing against that, is that literally the likes of ERG need to do nothing from now on to get a no deal. The UK has positioned itself in such a way that simply not agreeing a deal in the next few months will end up a no deal.

On the timing, I think it will, again, be pushed back. If my reading is right, then I suspect that TM has agreed to a large extent with the EU that a deal will be done, but it needs time and political manoeuvring to get across the line in the UK. So they will allow TM that time, pushing thinks back as far as possible. TM will then do the usual union negotiation thing whereby there is a last minute, working through the night, to secure a last gasp deal which everyone will accept as the alternative is simply too horrendous to contemplate. Leaving it so late will also have the effect of the markets starting to panic and thus falling, concentrating everyones mind on the reality.

Rhineshark

Igotadose wrote: »

Anyone got a feel for the current status of the negotiations? It seems like, there's one last scheduled event for October, maybe something in September, and then that's it? One would expect a frenzy of activity on the part of the UK now, but all I'm seeing is a dribble of stuff about Hunt whining that the no-deal Brexit will be bad. Well, yeah, Brexit will be bad in any form, and that's the worst one. 2+ years of waffling with just a couple months left, and the last proposal (Chequers) was rejected by the EU and gutted by the Tories. Welcome to the WTO and a border in NI as well as in Ireland is what it seems like will happen without dramatic change. Am I right?

Is it all last-minute political gamesmanship to keep the interest up?

There's a fairly strong feel in the UK that this is Tory project fear is to scare the populace enough that they'll agree any deal offered. Given the lot in charge, it's not outside the bounds of possibility, annoyingly.

They're not making it hugely clear if the deal we're all supposed to be scared into accepting (there's a bit directed to the EU which is being mostly met by confused shrug) is Chequers Original or Chequers Extra Salty and no real thought into that even if they can scare British people into accepting Salty Chequers (ERG amended) there is *no way* that will be accepted by either the Irish gov or the wider EU.

Even original Chequers was no more than a starting point for negotiations and contained much sausage/cherry picking/unicorns fantasies.

So looks to me, if we accept the Project Fear notion that May's gov is trying desperately to get something Chequers-like through by talking about the undoubtedly bad effects of no deal, while Johnson is manouvering for position with the backing if the ERG, who are currently writing their own "deal" to demand unicorns (and/or "sausages" per translated European media) which will represent Johnson's call for support in his leadership challenge.

I suspect Farage is going to throw support behind Johnson and that's part of the reason he's back demogoguing in the UK.

It's an interpretation at least. Half the time trying to work out Tory machinations is like trying to make patterns out of an exploded duck.

McGiver

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Take into account that the EU has Free Trade Agreements with 70 odd countries, and other relations and deals with most of the rest and the UK has a lot of catching up to do.

Basically, the Brexiteers' argument is that the FTAs are useless because they are not English and not tailored to the needs of England.

Rhineshark

McGiver wrote: »

Basically, the Brexiteers' argument is that the FTAs are useless because they are not English and not tailored to the needs of England.

Despite copy-pasting the schedules with no regard for whether they make any sense for England...sorry, Britain.

Both keeping them as is and trying to change them to be more advantageous will have challenges put against them to the WTO.

They are going to be really annoyed when they lose the bits that were tailored for Britain to get rid of the bits that benefit Spain.

Water John

Mentioning Spain, I think they'll hang really tough on the Gibraltar issue and will be difficult to shift.