Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Varta

VinLieger wrote: »

Do you think you should leave with no deal, the negotiated WA, a norway deal , a canada deal, a + style deal of either of the previous two options, stay in the SM, stay in the CU, end free movement, allow a NI backstop or make it a complete UK backstop?


Is "leave" or "remain" a reasonable question to ask when considering all of the above options that are still not all of the ones available or anything close to all the questions that need to be answered.

Surely that's the role of the elected representatives? The public made a decision to leave and representative democracy should have decided on what terms were best to leave on. Obviously leaving was an insane decision, but it was a democratic decision. On another note, I think it was a big mistake to give them an extension and I just wish they were gone at this stage. Bring on a hard border, I'm sure the good people in NI stuck under the UK yoke can endure for a while longer knowing that freedom will come all the sooner as a result.

jimmycrackcorm

Bit cynical wrote: »

Rerunning a referendum is unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view, yes. Not the only perspective; there are other considerations. But from the perspective of democracy, problematic I think.

That's why they're should not be a rerun.
Instead, a new referendum should ask specifically about preferred options.

To be really democratic, it should use STV.

prawnsambo

dublinjock wrote: »

So im correct im not able to vote for the commiionersss who in turn vote for the EU President.

No, you're wrong. The Commissioners don't vote for anyone.

dublinjock wrote: »

So who would the commissioners be accountable to?
These are genuine questions because its only the last few years i have started to read up learn about the EU and what it does.

Think of the Commissioners as the heads of the civil service departments. That's basically what they are at EU level. And nobody votes for heads of civil service departments either here or in the UK.

dublinjock

VinLieger wrote: »

Do you think you should leave with no deal, the negotiated WA, a norway deal , a canada deal, a + style deal of either of the previous two options, stay in the SM, stay in the CU, end free movement, allow a NI backstop or make it a complete UK backstop?


Is "leave" or "remain" a reasonable question to ask when considering all of the above options that are still not all of the ones available or anything close to all the questions that need to be answered.

This a good question, i would not be able to answer at the moment because ive not up on all the above deals.But i would be more in the area of the Norway deal.



I dont have all the answers and dont pretend to. This why we have elected politicians, but they seem to have any idea of what to do.

Professor Moriarty

trellheim wrote: »

As BC said we are kind of wrapped up here in minutia.

to Dublinjock

Conservatives AND Labour's stated position is to LEAVE. Libdems and SNP are Remain.

Now it gets difficult.

Nobody knows what Leave means. This is what has caused all the fuss for THREE YEARS . There is a majority in the House of Commons to resolve this issue by postponing (not cancelling ) leave, running a much more detailed referendum with exact choices for people to vote on and then implementing the result of a second referendum.

The most likely outcome right now if this does not happen is an extremely damaging no-deal exit.

And if you think it will all stop after a no-deal I have news because the very first thing after a no-deal will be mini deals 1,2,3,4 with the EU


With regard to european commissioners and their accountability, 4.5 seconds googling finds



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission

The European Parliament is sitting this week. It will sit next week. Anyone know if the House of Commons is sitting? Stormont still going strong?

gmisk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The European Parliament is sitting this week. It will sit next week. Anyone know if the House of Commons is sitting? Stormont still going strong?

Er it definitely isnt sitting at the minute....

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

The HoC can't make up their minds how the UK is to leave. The instruction in the referendum result didn't specify it. So that means that it is up to the HoC to decide how and they can't. It's as simple as that.

In fairness, of course, the referendum pretty much had to be a simple in out question since these are the only options in the UK government's power to deliver. Everything else is down to negotiation.

Zubeneschamali

dublinjock wrote: »

So im correct im not able to vote for the commiionersss who in turn vote for the EU President.

There is no EU President.

The commissioners are nominated by the EU28 governments. In your case, Sir Julian King, Security Union Commissioner, was nominated by your PM David Cameron, recommended for the Security Union Portfolio by Juncker, President of the Commission, and then approved by the EU Parliament and Council.

The Commissioners are answerable to the European Parliament, who can sack them en masse. They threatened that in 1999 causing Santers commission to resign.

The Commissioners do the job (roughly) of a minister in the UK government. You don't vote for them directly in the same way you didn't vote for Sajid Javid to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

dublinjock

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, you're wrong. The Commissioners don't vote for anyone.

Think of the Commissioners as the heads of the civil service departments. That's basically what they are at EU level. And nobody votes for heads of civil service departments either here or in the UK.

Thanks for putting me right.
So who does vote for the EU president? How do they get this job.
I believe Ursula von der Leyen was elected as the new president.
Who was the other candidates?

Professor Moriarty

gmisk wrote: »

Er it definitely isnt sitting at the minute....

Oh dear. That's terrible news. People keep saying that the EU is undemocratic.

gmisk

dublinjock wrote: »

Thanks for putting me right.
So who does vote for the EU president? How do they get this job.
I believe Ursula von der Leyen was elected as the new president.
Who was the other candidates?

Google is your friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Appointment

LuckyLloyd

dublinjock wrote: »

So i take it im not able to vote for either?

You get to vote to leave the EU, but that doesn’t imply that you get to leave in such a way that absolves your country of its financial obligations and commitments to an International treaty such as the GFA. The EU has concluded a withdrawal agreement. Your issue is with the British political system and its politicians imo.

trellheim

Boris Johnson has lied to every other woman in his life, why he'd make an exception for the queen seems unlikely.

Quote of the week so far from Jess Phillips lol

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1171798472502235136

robinph

dublinjock wrote: »

I dont have all the answers and dont pretend to. This why we have elected politicians, but they seem to have any idea of what to do.

The question that was asked didn't provide a suitable definition to the politicians of what the public wanted and the people who agitated in order to get the unspecific question asked also didn't provide a definition of what it was that they were upset about, or what question should be asked, or what should be done once the answer to the random question was found. It's not the politicians fault that they can't answer the question that doesn't have an answer.

It is their fault for not asking a sensible question in the first place of course.

Itssoeasy

gmisk wrote: »

Er it definitely isnt sitting at the minute....

The only people sitting in stormont are the staff keeping the lights on and doing whatever work goes on regardless of whether there are assembly sittings.

Shelga

briany wrote: »

They don't have any interest in the consequences of a hard border

They don’t have any interest in Northern Ireland, full stop. Absolutely zero. My Brexity former colleagues have told me so. They think it is being used as an obstacle to thwart their democratic will, and could not care less if the NI economy is decimated.

gmisk

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The only people sitting in stormont are the staff keeping the lights on and doing whatever work goes on regardless of whether there are assembly sittings.

In fairness they were probably the only ones that did any work there in the first place

ElectronVolt

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, you're wrong. The Commissioners don't vote for anyone.

Think of the Commissioners as the heads of the civil service departments. That's basically what they are at EU level. And nobody votes for heads of civil service departments either here or in the UK.

They're more or less parallels of the US cabinet only with the added check that each one is nominated by a member state and their line of accountability is to the parliament as there's no elected executive "president of Europe."

Also the term "president" does not mean US President or France's president de la republique or our president. It simply means the head of a particular unit.

I don't know how many times I've seen comments about how such and such is an unelected president. It just seems to be willful ignorance of the English language and the far broader meaning and use of the term president. I mean is the president of a chamber of commerce, a bank, a university or a school somehow now also doing the same role as the US President? The term has broad meaning.

The president of the commission is just that - heads the European Commission. The president of the Council of the EU was created because the council is made up of either the 28 national ministers for a particular department or the 28 heads of government. The President of the Council is effective just a role that works as the convener and coordinator of the council so that there's a permanent point of contact. They actually have no executive function. That's entirely reserved for the elected governments.

And the president of the European Parliament is just that. Again, they have no executive function.

Bit cynical

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's why they're should not be a rerun.
Instead, a new referendum should ask specifically about preferred options.

To be really democratic, it should use STV.

They could ask a whole load of questions, but as I said in an earlier post each of them need to be deliverable by the State. If people voted for a Canada++ or whatever deal, it could not necessarily deliver on that because that outcome only occurs through negotiation with other States who may (justifiably) have other priorities. For example, we in Ireland, quite understandably, might object to a Canada style deal on the basis that it creates a border on the Island and we don't want a border. Other countries might have other objections and so on.

prawnsambo

dublinjock wrote: »

Thanks for putting me right.
So who does vote for the EU president? How do they get this job.
I believe Ursula von der Leyen was elected as the new president.
Who was the other candidates?

The EuCo select and decide candidates. That's the elected heads of state of each of the EU28 member states. And there are two presidents. The Commission president and the president of the Council. Neither have any real power other than as titular heads.

The EuCo decide on policy, the Commission drafts (and lots of other housekeeping functions) the policy and the Parliament votes on it. That's (a very short synopsis of) how it all works.

dublinjock

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no EU President.

The commissioners are nominated by the EU28 governments. In your case, Sir Julian King, Security Union Commissioner, was nominated by your PM David Cameron, recommended for the Security Union Portfolio by Juncker, President of the Commission, and then approved by the EU Parliament and Council.

The Commissioners are answerable to the European Parliament, who can sack them en masse. They threatened that in 1999 causing Santers commission to resign.

The Commissioners do the job (roughly) of a minister in the UK government. You don't vote for them directly in the same way you didn't vote for Sajid Javid to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Thanks this is very interesting and appreciate the explanation.
Can you tell me Sir Julian King was he an MEP voted in by his constituency or just picked as im not sure.Im going to look into this a bit more.


Sajid Javid was elected as a MP then given the job as Chancellor of the Exchequer as an elected member of parliament.

SeaBreezes

Bit cynical wrote: »

Rerunning a referendum is unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view, yes. Not the only perspective; there are other considerations. But from the perspective of democracy, problematic I think.

But this is the SECOND referendum.. the first was wether or not to join the EU. The second was shall we leave? And the THIRD should be.. These are our current choices, stay, leave on these terms, or hard Brexit. With agreements published online and all versions of Yellow Hammer published.. that would be democratic..

Zubeneschamali

dublinjock wrote: »

Can you tell me Sir Julian King was he an MEP voted in by his constituency or just picked as im not sure.

Just picked by the UK Government, he was previously a career diplomat, Ambassador to France and Ireland, head of the Northern Ireland Office, that sort of stuff.

dublinjock

ElectronVolt wrote: »

They're more or less parallels of the US cabinet only with the added check that each one is nominated by a member state and their line of accountability is to the parliament as there's no elected executive "president of Europe."

Also the term "president" does not mean US President or France's president de la republique or our president. It simply means the head of a particular unit.

I don't know how many times I've seen comments about how such and such is an unelected president. The president of the commission is just that - heads the European Commission. The president of the Council of the EU was created because the council is made up of either the 28 national ministers for a particular department or the 28 heads of government. The President of the Council is effective just a role that works as the convener and coordinator of the council so that there's a permanent point of contact. They actually have no executive function. That's entirely reserved for the elected governments.

And the president of the European Parliament is just that. Again, they have no executive function.

I understand what your saying about the President being like a head od state. But its an important role and they get to have say more than any other head of state would on matters.
Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

trellheim

Be careful - Heads of state and heads of Government are mostly not the same person. In the US they are in the UK and Ireland they are not.


The EU is not a nation.

DOCARCH

dublinjock wrote: »

Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

The Queen?

Bit cynical

SeaBreezes wrote: »

But this is the SECOND referendum.. the first was wether or not to join the EU. The second was shall we leave? And the THIRD should be.. These are our current choices, stay, leave on these terms, or hard Brexit. With agreements published online and all versions of Yellow Hammer published.. that would be democratic..

Well I think the UK joined the EU (EEC then) without a referendum initially. The 1975 referendum was to confirm that they were to stay in that organisation.

However, yes we can treat the 2016 referendum as the second referendum, the first being in 1975. Even so, I don't think there's a democratic problem with rerunning in this situation. The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

In this regard, there's no problem having a third referendum but to be democratic, a) the previous referendum must be implemented and b) some time must pass. How much time? I don't know. But immediately rerunning the referendum I would suggest is problematic.

Zubeneschamali

dublinjock wrote: »

Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

The EU is not a state, and it doesn't have a President.

murphaph

Bit cynical wrote: »

Rerunning a referendum is unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view, yes. Not the only perspective; there are other considerations. But from the perspective of democracy, problematic I think.

That surely depends on whether or not the referendum made any sense.

If the question had been "Do you want the UK to do whatever it takes to put a man on Mars by the end of the decade?" and as we approach 2020 the public saw more and more money being thrown at the Mars project, would they not have the right to vote on stopping it?

The original question was infantile. All the complexity we all now know surrounds leaving the EU wrapped up in a one line yes or no question. Nonsense.

Calina

dublinjock wrote: »

Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

The UK's head of state is a hereditary monarch. Election is nowhere near schedule.

In terms of Presidents of EU institutions, it is worth bearing in mind that président also translates as chairman as well as president and a lot of terminology came from French.

If you look at the roles in each of the 3 main institutions, for Commission and Council, the role maps more to Chairperson than a head of state. For Parliament, I would say the mapping is more to speaker in terms of role.