Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

boring accountant

McGiver wrote: »

Anyone speculating that Johnson going for BRINO is deluded. It's not going to happen, ever.

Yes, he's a populist, charlatan, and cares about himself, has no principles etc. But you have to look who pays him. He's only a clown and a useful idiot, his power ambitions are being leveraged by powerful people. He's literally a puppet PM.

Who's behind him? The oligarchs of all shades - Russian, American, British. Supported by neoliberal think tanks etc. The agenda is clear - deregulate, privatise, sell everything out and deconstruct the welfare state.

This is no conspiracy theory. One ex one nation tory (long gone from the party) who was doing election campaign for Cameron (don't remember his name) said few months back on Cakewatch podcast that he had heard from reliable sources in the New Tory party - "These are people who want American money in the UK economy on 31st October". This is exactly what he said. This is a serious podcast so I would believe that information.

It got delayed a bit due to obstructions in the HoC but this is what is likely going to gravitate towards.

Is American money worse than European money?

If the UK gets a good trade deal with the EU that would be a great boost for Ireland given how much of our trade is driven by UK demand. A strong UK economy is good for us. Really puts Varadkar's hardball approach in a new light.

AllForIt

10000maniacs wrote: »

An analysis of what went wrong with Labour being discussed now on Newsnight. The elephant in the room has not been mentioned once yet, 25 minutes in. Labour's policy on immigration from the EU. That's what killed them. They need to convince voters that immigration is good or else go with the Tory line.

The elephant was addressed in the last 10 mins - champagne city socialists with their high minded ideals and sneering of anyone who would consider themselves patriotic especially if they are working class.

boring accountant

brickster69 wrote: »

Yeah very pragmatic Tusk is. Good job Markel never did it or her car industry would be destroyed.

https://twitter.com/donaldtuskEPP/status/1202532538033590272

It's a real problem that EU politicians can't be voted out of office by the public. It allows them to act with relative impunity, including undermining relations with major trading partners by tweeting out pointless provocations such as this.


If EU bureacrats are going to wield so much power with so little accountability to the public there needs to be strict codes of conduct for them to adhere to.

This is the kind of thing you tweet out when you're accountable to no one.

Strazdas

boring accountant wrote: »

It's a real problem that EU politicians can't be voted out of office by the public. It allows them to act with relative impunity, including undermining relations with major trading partners by tweeting out pointless provocations such as this.


If EU bureacrats are going to wield so much power with so little accountability to the public there needs to be strict codes of conduct for them to adhere to.

This is the kind of thing you tweet out when you're accountable to no one.

How could the European public hire and fire individual members of the EU Commission??

Johnson wasn't elected PM by the public. He was made leader of the Conservatives by members of the party and elected PM by Parliament. He personally appoints the Cabinet.....the public have no input whatsoever to any of the top jobs.

McGiver

Strazdas wrote:

How could the European public hire and fire individual members of the EU Commission??

Especially given that public are so smart to hire buffoons like Johnson or charlatans like Varoufakis.

And how would that work? If it was by popular vote than Germany and France would really control the EU. Which they of course don't now. How would that work out for Ireland with say 2M votes versus Germany & France combined 70M??? Yeah right.

Eurosceptic nonsensical populistic rhetoric to suggest this. Without suggesting a workable mechanism ensuring smaller member states are represented and qualified commissioners selected.

McGiver

10000maniacs wrote:

That does not matter to or register with these voters in smaller traditional Labour towns like Durham,Peterborough, Darlington and Workington where most immigrants from the EU and further afield tend to be council housed because of the lower property prices.

Please provide evidence for this.

ambro25

boring accountant wrote: »

It's a real problem that EU politicians can't be voted out of office by the public. It allows them to act with relative impunity, including undermining relations with major trading partners by tweeting out pointless provocations such as this.


If EU bureacrats are going to wield so much power with so little accountability to the public there needs to be strict codes of conduct for them to adhere to.

This is the kind of thing you tweet out when you're accountable to no one.

Can I safely assume that this post was a sarcastic reply to the faked outrage posts about Tusk's tweet and that, in the above, "EU politicians" is an allegory for "Johnson" and "EU bureaucrats" is likewise an allegory for "Johnson's cabinet members"?

CelticRambler

boring accountant wrote: »

If the UK gets a good trade deal with the EU that would be a great boost for Ireland given how much of our trade is driven by UK demand.

Really? :rolleyes: How much of our trade is driven by UK demand. Oh, yes 50% 25% 12% 11% 10% 9% ... and still falling. We're heading rapidly to the point where our trade with NI counts for as much as our trade with GB, and GB is fast becoming little more than a storage depot for our imports.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Johnson wasn't elected PM by the public. He was made leader of the Conservatives by members of the party and elected PM by Parliament.

This is true. However its a long-established tradition that the leader of the party becomes PM if the party wins an election. Same is true in Ireland and many other countries with a parliamentary system.

So while officially your voting for an MP (or TD in Ireland) you're also voting for the PM (or Taoiseach). This is why in the UK people voted against otherwise popular Labour candidates because they knew that supporting them could lead to Corbyn becoming PM.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

This is true. However its a long-established tradition that the leader of the party becomes PM if the party wins an election. Same is true in Ireland and many other countries with a parliamentary system.

So while officially your voting for an MP (or TD in Ireland) your also voting for the PM (or Taoiseach). This is why in the UK people voted against otherwise popular Labour candidates because they knew that supporting them could lead to Corbyn becoming PM.

It's an established tradition that in Europe the largest party after the election to the European Parliament gets to lead the commission. That is what we have now, EEP members hold the key jobs in the commission because they won the election.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Really? :rolleyes: How much of our trade is driven by UK demand. Oh, yes 50% 25% 12% 11% 10% 9% ... and still falling. We're heading rapidly to the point where our trade with NI counts for as much as our trade with GB, and GB is fast becoming little more than a storage depot for our imports.

Whilst it is true that our trade with the UK is much reduced I would be cautious with these figures given the presence of multinationals headquartered in the country.

Tea Shock

boring accountant wrote: »

Is American money worse than European money?

If the UK gets a good trade deal with the EU that would be a great boost for Ireland given how much of our trade is driven by UK demand. A strong UK economy is good for us. Really puts Varadkar's hardball approach in a new light.

What nonsense is this?

What “hard ball approach” does Varadkar have to a UK/EU trade deal?

Sam Russell

I think the idea that the UK will make it illegal for the UK to ask for an extension past Dec 2020 looks to me to have Moggy fingerprints all over it.

Remember, the current UK cabinet is largely the Brexity cabinet that was there before the election. It will be Feb 2020 before Johnson can pick a new cabinet which might or might not be just as Bexity.

We await news on that one.

Gerry T

Bit cynical wrote:

This is true. However its a long-established tradition that the leader of the party becomes PM if the party wins an election. Same is true in Ireland and many other countries with a parliamentary system.

And it's also known that the PM is the respective countries EU council member. Each EU country gets 1 council member to represent their country

Bit cynical wrote:

So while officially your voting for an MP (or TD in Ireland) you're also voting for the PM (or Taoiseach). This is why in the UK people voted against otherwise popular Labour candidates because they knew that supporting them could lead to Corbyn becoming PM.

Tusk was president, which is a 2.5yr term and acted by majority of the council members.

The EU is a democratic body, now what's this peerage thing all about.

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

Whilst it is true that our trade with the UK is much reduced I would be cautious with these figures given the presence of multinationals headquartered in the country.

Which has what specifically to do with the UK or their impact of same.

listermint

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the idea that the UK will make it illegal for the UK to ask for an extension past Dec 2020 looks to me to have Moggy fingerprints all over it.

Remember, the current UK cabinet is largely the Brexity cabinet that was there before the election. It will be Feb 2020 before Johnson can pick a new cabinet which might or might not be just as Bexity.

We await news on that one.

Oh the ERG are out now. You may recall they refused to publish a members list..they now have photo ops of all of them on twitter . They are all public now.

Investigations of their interests should be a point of opposition parties.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

Which has what specifically to do with the UK or their impact of same.

It means that the social impact of reduced trade with the UK might not be reflected in the figures to the same extent as another country that doesn't have as great a presence of multinationals.

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

It means that the social impact of reduced trade with the UK might not be reflected in the figures to the same extent as another country that doesn't have as great a presence of multinationals.

We are fully aware of that. But we have a presence. Our EU access plays a major part in that. Often overlooked by anti EU folks.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's an established tradition that in Europe the largest party after the election to the European Parliament gets to lead the commission. That is what we have now, EEP members hold the key jobs in the commission because they won the election.

I think you might be referring here to the scrapped "Spitzenkandidat" (lead candidate) system.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think you might be referring here to the scrapped "Spitzenkandidat" (lead candidate) system.

What worried me about the "Spitzenkandidat" idea was that it was a German word when I always thought that English was the Lingua Franca of Europe.

I was delighted that the German upstart idea was so quickly scrapped.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

We are fully aware of that. But we have a presence. Our EU access plays a major part in that. Often overlooked by anti EU folks.

Sure. We just need to be cautious when someone says "look only 9% (or whatever) trade is with the UK". The social impact of that 9% could be a lot greater than losing 9% elsewhere.

johnnyskeleton

Tea Shock wrote: »

What nonsense is this?

What “hard ball approach” does Varadkar have to a UK/EU trade deal?

Indeed, the Irish approach has been "avoid a border in NI like you promised, as its in both of our interests. After that we're happy with whatever you want" is the very opposite of hardball.

Taking the British at their word, Ireland would have facilitated the "easiest trade deal in the world" without issue.

The problem is taking the British at their word.

I've been watching some interviews with Putin recently, and Brexit helps me to see exactly what hes at. Do something to raise tensions internationally, deny youve done it, and accuse the other guy of doing what youve just done. Its amazing really

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure. We just need to be cautious when someone says "look only 9% (or whatever) trade is with the UK". The social impact of that 9% could be a lot greater than losing 9% elsewhere.

Exactly what we've been arguing which is all the more reason to spread that 9 percent out across our EU friends. And like minded nations.

sondagefaux

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's an established tradition that in Europe the largest party after the election to the European Parliament gets to lead the commission. That is what we have now, EEP members hold the key jobs in the commission because they won the election.

It's set out in the Treaty on European Union (i.e. it's EU law, not just 'tradition'), that the results of the elections to the European Parliament be taken into account by the European Council when deciding on who to nominate for the post of President of the European Commission.

The European Parliament interpreted this as meaning that it effectively gets to decide which candidate should be nominated by the European Council, ideally (from the Parliament's perspective) with a person from the largest European party grouping in the Parliament getting the nomination, as the so-called Spitzenkandidat (leading candidate).

Even so, the Spitzenkandidat system wouldn't necessarily mean that someone from the largest party grouping in the European Parliament gets to become the Commission President. Usually the party groupings (eg. the EPP) won't have an outright majority of all MEPs, so their proposed candidates would have to be acceptable to the other larger party groupings to gain the support of a majority of all MEPs.

Macron's rejection of the Spitzenkandidat system is an attempt by him (and others) to assert the authority of the European Council over the European Parliament.

But the Parliament,as set out in Article 17.7 of the Treaty on European Union, still has the final say on whether or not to accept or reject the candidate put forward by the Council.

If the European Council does nominate a candidate who is unacceptable to a majority in the European Parliament, that person won't be voted into office by the European Parliament.

Despite Macron's attempt to scupper the system, it's still got some legs, because of the necessity for the Council's candidate to be accepted by a majority of all MEPs.

7. Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.

8. The Commission, as a body, shall be responsible to the European Parliament. In accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament may vote on a motion of censure of the Commission. If such a motion is carried, the members of the Commission shall resign as a body and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall resign from the duties that he carries out in the Commission.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008M017

And as Macron found out to his cost, the European Parliament can punish any leaders in the Council who mess around with the Parliament's rights, in this case by rejecting the French candidate for Commissioner, Sylvie Goulard, much to Macron's anger.

https://www.politico.eu/article/frances-commission-pick-sylvie-goulard-rejected-by-parliament/

Her alleged misuse of EU funds (she had to return €45,000 to the EU for allegedly 'employing' a fictitious person) with the EU's anti-fraud office (OLAF) investigating her didn't help her cause and she's since been placed under formal investigation by prosecutors in France for alleged misuse of public funds: https://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/sylvie-goulard-a-ete-mise-en-examen-pour-detournement-de-fonds-publics_105942/

Whatever Macron and other EU leaders who support him may wish, the Council alone can't chose the President of the Commission. The candidate chosen by the Council has to be acceptable to a majority of MEPs.

On the other hand, the Parliament can't push a Spitzenkandidat onto the Council, as the Council has the power to nominate a candidate of its choosing, not the Parliament's choice.

In practice, there has to be a compromise between the Council and the Parliament over who gets the job.

sondagefaux

boring accountant wrote: »

It's a real problem that EU politicians can't be voted out of office by the public. It allows them to act with relative impunity, including undermining relations with major trading partners by tweeting out pointless provocations such as this.


If EU bureacrats are going to wield so much power with so little accountability to the public there needs to be strict codes of conduct for them to adhere to.

This is the kind of thing you tweet out when you're accountable to no one.

MEPs can obviously be voted out by the public, since they're voted in by the public.

The Commission is responsible to the European Parliament, and can be sacked en masse by the Parliament if even one Commissioner is censured by the Parliament.

A threat to censure one Commissioner resulted in the entire Commission resigning from office before they were sacked by the European Parliament, back in 1999.

https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/history-fall-of-the-santer-commission_V001-0004_ev

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

PS: Donald Tusk's term of office ended on 31st October. He's no longer an official of the European Union and can say and tweet pretty much what he likes.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think you might be referring here to the scrapped "Spitzenkandidat" (lead candidate) system.

No, while the parliaments prefered choice under the spitzenkandidat system was not chosen, the office holder still comes from the EPP. You don't get to vote for head of the commission, you vote for MEP's and those MEP's are aligned to parties. The head of the commission is chosen from the winning party.

It works alot like how the UK chooses its prime minister, the public don't get to vote for PM, the PM is chosen from the largest party. That is how we got PM Johnson as PM for a few months when nobody had voted for him to be PM. Or indeed PM May before him who people actually rejected as PM but who still got the job anyway because the Tories were the biggest party. If you think the EU is undemocratic on this count, then so is the UK.

timetogo1

listermint wrote: »

Exactly what we've been arguing which is all the more reason to spread that 9 percent out across our EU friends. And like minded nations.

As well as that if tariffs go on that 9% would that 9% immediately drop to 0%. I suspect it might drop a couple but the tarrif would have to be borne by the UK consumer (similar to the trade war with the US and China, trade didn't stop, costs went up).

sondagefaux

Imreoir2 wrote: »

No, while the parliaments prefered choice under the spitzenkandidat system was not chosen, the office holder still comes from the EPP. You don't get to vote for head of the commission, you vote for MEP's and those MEP's are aligned to parties. The head of the commission is chosen from the winning party.

It works alot like how the UK chooses its prime minister, the public don't get to vote for PM, the PM is chosen from the largest party. That is how we got PM Johnson as PM for a few months when nobody had voted for him to be PM. Or indeed PM May before him who people actually rejected as PM but who still got the job anyway because the Tories were the biggest party. If you think the EU is undemocratic on this count, then so is the UK.

No, the head of the commission isn't necessarily chosen from the biggest party grouping in the European Parliament. It's very rare for the likes of the EPP or any other party grouping to have an outright majority in the European Parliament. So they have to find someone who's acceptable to the other large party groupings, like the Social Democrats and the Liberals. In addition, the Council isn't under a strict obligation to accept the so-called Spitzenkandidat. It didn't this year, and the Council and Parliament had to agree to a compromise candidate. The Council has the power to nominate a candidate, the Parliament has the power to accept or reject a candidate. Therefore, there has to be a compromise between the two institutions.

Otherwise, there could be gridlock, with a Spitzenkandidat rejected by the Council (by the Council not nominating them as a candidate) and the Council's candidate rejected by the Parliament.

First Up

timetogo1 wrote:

As well as that if tariffs go on that 9% would that 9% immediately drop to 0%. I suspect it might drop a couple but the tarrif would have to be borne by the UK consumer (similar to the trade war with the US and China, trade didn't stop, costs went up).

We all know that our agri-food and SMEs in general have a much higher dependence on the UK - well over 40% of exports in some areas. Some companies are sure to suffer but a lot of effort (supported by the EU) is going into reducing that. This is not just for Irish companies - its an EU wide effort to reduce the impact of a UK crash out (as well as reduce the size of any bargaining chip the UK thinks it has).

As for food, the UK imports half of what it eats so any tariffs they impose on imports from Ireland or anywhere in the EU will be quickly seen at the checkouts. That won't go down well.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The head of the commission is chosen from the winning party.

It works alot like how the UK chooses its prime minister, the public don't get to vote for PM, the PM is chosen from the largest party.

Not quite I'm afraid though it is often dressed up as being similar.

It would be more accurate to say that the the PM is chosen by the largest party or bloc. normally the leader of that party. So in the recent UK election, people knew that a vote for a Tory party was also to a large extent a vote for Johnson as PM and likewise a vote for a Labour candidate was partly a vote for Corbyin.

On the other hand, I think you would be hard pressed when voting for an MEP to have any idea on how this would impact the choice of president of the commission. For example in the most recent EU elections, presidential debates were held but no top jobs were handed out to any taking part in them.

Yes, as you point out, the candidate might often be picked from the largest party in the parliament, but it could be anyone in that party and even there it is not certain that this will be the case.