Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

So much like a vote for a minority Tory government in 2017 resulted in Johnson as PM in 2019?

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

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.

A way around the problem of democratic deficit while avoiding gridlock might be to reverse the process slightly. Instead of the Commission "having regard" to the choice of the parliament, the Commission puts forward its own recommendation to the parliament. Then the lead candidates from the parties along with the Commission's recommendation are voted upon by the parliament.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

So much like a vote for a minority Tory government in 2017 resulted in Johnson as PM in 2019?

Well they got Theresa May for most of it. When she went Johnson won the leadership contest but was only in the position of PM for a short period before an election was called.

Bit cynical

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.

However it may not be as simple as that. For example, agricultural products currently selling into the UK market may not be able to compete in other parts of the EU where the same products are available from elsewhere. There may be a reason that that 9% still sell to the UK.

For example, fairly early on after the referendum result, there was a fall in Sterling and reports in the Irish media about mushroom producers going under because they could no longer sell profitably to the UK. Now it would have been easy to tell them to sell further afield in Europe but realistically with transport costs the options to do this would be very limited. This, of course, would have been replicated across many similar businesses due to the fall in STG and, of course, failure of the EU and UK to form a deal would have greater impact.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it may not be as simple as that. For example, agricultural products currently selling into the UK market may not be able to compete in other parts of the EU where the same products are available from elsewhere. There may be a reason that that 9% still sell to the UK.

For example, fairly early on after the referendum result, there was a fall in Sterling and reports in the Irish media about mushroom producers going under because they could no longer sell profitably to the UK. Now it would have been easy to tell them to sell further afield in Europe but realistically with transport costs the options to do this would be very limited. This, of course, would have been replicated across many similar businesses due to the fall in STG and, of course, failure of the EU and UK to form a deal would have greater impact.

The problem with the Irish mushroom business is they were priced in GBP instead of Euro so the Irish producer took the risk. That risk will continue, but producers that price in GBP would want to have a clause for a claw back if the exchange rate fluctuated beyond a certain amount - not useful if you are a price taker.

Generally, UK buyers or sellers do not understand currency and exchange rates.

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem with the Irish mushroom business is they were priced in GBP instead of Euro so the Irish producer took the risk. That risk will continue, but producers that price in GBP would want to have a clause for a claw back if the exchange rate fluctuated beyond a certain amount - not useful if you are a price taker.

Generally, UK buyers or sellers do not understand currency and exchange rates.

Although I think even if Irish producers were able to price in Euros they would still have trouble selling into the UK market as retail prices there would still be in Sterling which was losing value. Labour and other costs for competitors based in the UK would tend to go down (relative the Euro) compared to costs in Ireland which would remain fixed.

But the point remains that they can't really just switch to selling to Latvia or Germany or wherever else in the EU that easily as fresh products aren't that transportable and transport costs would add up quickly.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

Although I think even if Irish producers were able to price in Euros they would still have trouble selling into the UK market as retail prices there would still be in Sterling which was losing value. Labour and other costs for competitors based in the UK would tend to go down (relative the Euro) compared to costs in Ireland which would remain fixed.

For mushrooms that was not the case. When GBP dropped, many products rose in price and that would apply to Irish mushrooms if they were priced in Euro, but they were not.

Ireland were the major supplier to the UK, and would have continued to be but for the error of GBP pricing. The Irish system worked on very low margins, and required high labour numbers that were basically zero hours workers.

Dytalus

Bit cynical wrote: »

A way around the problem of democratic deficit while avoiding gridlock might be to reverse the process slightly. Instead of the Commission Council "having regard" to the choice of the parliament, the Commission Council puts forward its own recommendation to the parliament. Then the lead candidates from the parties along with the CommissionCouncil's recommendation are voted upon by the parliament.

Minor corrections to your post.

I'm all for greater power given to the Parliament, and bringing European democracy closer to its citizens. Because what a lot of people clamouring against the EU's 'demoratic deficit' do not realise is that by doing so, they shift the EU fundamentally towards a more federalised role. Which I wholeheartedly support.

With the current structure of the EU, the Member States' elected governments have a sizable percentage of control over the EU. The European Council decides on the strategic direction, the Commission (appointed by the Council) creates laws, and the Council of Ministers (made up of, again, members of the Member's own elected governments) works with Parliament to amend or accept those laws before voting on them in the Parliament.

Using the making of laws as an example, this system fundamentally leaves the 'direction' of the EU in the hands of the Member State governments - rather than the Parliament (and therefore the citizens more directly). Which is what the EU is supposed to do: represent the will of the countries, with the people acting as final approvers through their elected MEPs. Shifting more control into Parliament's hands and (for example) giving them legislative powers strips control of the EU from Madrid, Dublin, Berlin, etc and shifts it further towards Brussels.

Selection of the Commission President is a similar (though less 'severe') thing. By allowing the Council to decide on who they want, and only fundamentally allowing the Parliament the veto, it ensures that the Member States governments (who are supposed to represent their countries and as a result represent, for example, Germans) have greater control than the MEPs (who represent their electorate as citizens of the EU, and not as, continuing the example, Germans). Obviously the lines blur because MEPs usually do lean towards favouring their own countries rather than the EU, the Council(s) is(are) the controlling force(s) of the States and their interests. The Commission and Parliament are the controlling force of the EU and its interests.

The more power you strip from the individual governments of the member states and hand to the EU bodies directly (Parliament/Commission), the more 'federal' it becomes.

Enzokk

The Tory majority is 80 right now and it seems the ERG has around 37 members at the minimum. So Johnson is comfortable, but not very when it comes to ensuring his votes are not sabotaged from within regarding Brexit.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1207013350938423296?s=20

10000maniacs

Enzokk wrote: »

The Tory majority is 80 right now and it seems the ERG has around 37 members at the minimum. So Johnson is comfortable, but not very when it comes to ensuring his votes are not sabotaged from within regarding Brexit.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1207013350938423296?s=20

White English Nationalism is now normalised and has been given the green light by the English electorate. Can't explain it in any other way. All these ERG guys were first past the post in their constituencies. Sad times.

AllForIt

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. He personally appoints the Cabinet.....the public have no input whatsoever to any of the top jobs.

None whatsoever isn't quite right. They did have a say in who would be PM, either Corybn or Johnson.

Strazdas

AllForIt wrote: »

None whatsoever isn't quite right. They did have a say in who would be PM, either Corybn or Johnson.

Not during the summer though when Johnson first became PM.

Bit cynical

Dytalus wrote: »

Minor corrections to your post.

Yes I meant Council rather than Commision. Thank you for the correction.

I'm all for greater power given to the Parliament, and bringing European democracy closer to its citizens. Because what a lot of people clamouring against the EU's 'demoratic deficit' do not realise is that by doing so, they shift the EU fundamentally towards a more federalised role. Which I wholeheartedly support.


With the current structure of the EU, the Member States' elected governments have a sizable percentage of control over the EU. The European Council decides on the strategic direction, the Commission (appointed by the Council) creates laws, and the Council of Ministers (made up of, again, members of the Member's own elected governments) works with Parliament to amend or accept those laws before voting on them in the Parliament.

The problem is that you are not really giving power to the member states, you are really giving power to the heads of the member states and certain members of their cabinets. Without the EU these same heads operate with constrained powers. Look, for example, at Johnson before the recent election who was told by the UK parliament to request an extension which he did under protest. However neither the national parliaments nor the EU parliament have this sort of control over the heads of state acting as the Council in the EU. When we talk about the governments of the member states we are really talking about the heads of state, their cabinet and the national parliament combined and this doesn't apply when the heads of state are operating in the Council.

Using the making of laws as an example, this system fundamentally leaves the 'direction' of the EU in the hands of the Member State governments - rather than the Parliament (and therefore the citizens more directly). Which is what the EU is supposed to do: represent the will of the countries, with the people acting as final approvers through their elected MEPs. Shifting more control into Parliament's hands and (for example) giving them legislative powers strips control of the EU from Madrid, Dublin, Berlin, etc and shifts it further towards Brussels.

This is what I would question. Are the heads of state necessarily representing their countries? Yes they can be kicked out, but decision making in the EU is fairly opaque. It is hard to know who is behind a decision since each head can say they have to go along with the general direction of the EU. Most decisions of the Council are unanimous with the bargaining occurring behind the scenes.

Selection of the Commission President is a similar (though less 'severe') thing. By allowing the Council to decide on who they want, and only fundamentally allowing the Parliament the veto, it ensures that the Member States governments (who are supposed to represent their countries and as a result represent, for example, Germans) have greater control than the MEPs (who represent their electorate as citizens of the EU, and not as, continuing the example, Germans). Obviously the lines blur because MEPs usually do lean towards favouring their own countries rather than the EU, the Council(s) is(are) the controlling force(s) of the States and their interests. The Commission and Parliament are the controlling force of the EU and its interests.

Well the MEPs job is to represent their constituencies which will be wholly within one country. It's never been the job of MEPs to favour the EU as such. So German MEPs will represent German constituencies which make up Germany.

The more power you strip from the individual governments of the member states and hand to the EU bodies directly (Parliament/Commission), the more 'federal' it becomes.

I don't think critics of the EU on the basis of the democratic deficit are against federalism in the sense of empowering the EU parliament. I think, perhaps inaccurately, some equate federalism with an EU superstate. They see countries like Germany which is a federal state and therefore assume that federalism means becoming a sort of state. But in the sense giving more power to the directly elected portion of the institutions I don't think there's an issue.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

The Tory majority is 80 right now and it seems the ERG has around 37 members at the minimum. So Johnson is comfortable, but not very when it comes to ensuring his votes are not sabotaged from within regarding Brexit.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1207013350938423296?s=20

However he's not trying to keep multiple opposed groups onside like the DUP and I don't think Tory remainers are a threat, many of whom are gone and the rest can be picked off one by one.

sondagefaux

AllForIt wrote: »

None whatsoever isn't quite right. They did have a say in who would be PM, either Corybn or Johnson.

What if the anti-Tory parties had won enough MPs to out vote the Tories in the House of Commons?

There's no guarantee that Jeremy Corbyn would have become Prime Minister in that situation: the SNP and Lib Dems weren't particularly keen on him, and I'd say that enough of his own MPs would have voted in a parliamentary motion to deny him the job if the alternative would have been a minority Tory government.

There was no guarantee that David Cameron or Gordon Brown would become Prime Minister after the 2010 election. In fact, Brown offered to step down as Labour leader if the Lib Dems wanted him to.

The Lib Dems decided to go into coalition with the Tories though, without asking for Cameron's head, without demanding the implementation of PR via parliamentary legislation as a red line, without demanding the abolition of university tuition fees in England as a red line, and without any real sense of what being the junior partner in a coalition might be like (they should have asked the various junior partner parties in Ireland about the potential pitfalls).

Instead they allowed Cameron to become Prime Minister, got fobbed off with a piss-poor excuse of a voting system that isn't PR (which they couldn't convince a sceptical public to back), caved in completely on tuition fees, got hammered in the 2015 general election, enabling a Tory majority: the road to Brexit and Johnson was open.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

A way around the problem of democratic deficit while avoiding gridlock might be to reverse the process slightly. Instead of the Commission "having regard" to the choice of the parliament, the Commission puts forward its own recommendation to the parliament. Then the lead candidates from the parties along with the Commission's recommendation are voted upon by the parliament.

I don't see rules that give the leaders of the countries that make up the EU the power to nominate candidates for the head of the Commission, who can either be confirmed or rejected by the directly elected Parliament, as being an example of a democratic deficit.

sondagefaux

Dytalus wrote: »

Minor corrections to your post.

I'm all for greater power given to the Parliament, and bringing European democracy closer to its citizens. Because what a lot of people clamouring against the EU's 'demoratic deficit' do not realise is that by doing so, they shift the EU fundamentally towards a more federalised role. Which I wholeheartedly support.

With the current structure of the EU, the Member States' elected governments have a sizable percentage of control over the EU. The European Council decides on the strategic direction, the Commission (appointed by the Council) creates laws, and the Council of Ministers (made up of, again, members of the Member's own elected governments) works with Parliament to amend or accept those laws before voting on them in the Parliament.

Using the making of laws as an example, this system fundamentally leaves the 'direction' of the EU in the hands of the Member State governments - rather than the Parliament (and therefore the citizens more directly). Which is what the EU is supposed to do: represent the will of the countries, with the people acting as final approvers through their elected MEPs. Shifting more control into Parliament's hands and (for example) giving them legislative powers strips control of the EU from Madrid, Dublin, Berlin, etc and shifts it further towards Brussels.

Selection of the Commission President is a similar (though less 'severe') thing. By allowing the Council to decide on who they want, and only fundamentally allowing the Parliament the veto, it ensures that the Member States governments (who are supposed to represent their countries and as a result represent, for example, Germans) have greater control than the MEPs (who represent their electorate as citizens of the EU, and not as, continuing the example, Germans). Obviously the lines blur because MEPs usually do lean towards favouring their own countries rather than the EU, the Council(s) is(are) the controlling force(s) of the States and their interests. The Commission and Parliament are the controlling force of the EU and its interests.

The more power you strip from the individual governments of the member states and hand to the EU bodies directly (Parliament/Commission), the more 'federal' it becomes.

Minor quibble: the Commission proposes laws. Laws are created when they're enacted by the Parliament and/or Council.

Delegated legal acts are the exception.

But as the saying goes, power delegated is power retained (as it can be undelegated).

briany

sondagefaux wrote: »

What if the anti-Tory parties had won enough MPs to out vote the Tories in the House of Commons?

There's no guarantee that Jeremy Corbyn would have become Prime Minister in that situation: the SNP and Lib Dems weren't particularly keen on him, and I'd say that enough of his own MPs would have voted in a parliamentary motion to deny him the job if the alternative would have been a minority Tory government.

There was no guarantee that David Cameron or Gordon Brown would become Prime Minister after the 2010 election. In fact, Brown offered to step down as Labour leader if the Lib Dems wanted him to.

The Lib Dems decided to go into coalition with the Tories though, without asking for Cameron's head, without demanding the implementation of PR via parliamentary legislation as a red line, without demanding the abolition of university tuition fees in England as a red line, and without any real sense of what being the junior partner in a coalition might be like (they should have asked the various junior partner parties in Ireland about the potential pitfalls).

Instead they allowed Cameron to become Prime Minister, got fobbed off with a piss-poor excuse of a voting system that isn't PR (which they couldn't convince a sceptical public to back), caved in completely on tuition fees, got hammered in the 2015 general election, enabling a Tory majority: the road to Brexit and Johnson was open.

To be honest, the PR would have had even less chance were it put to a parliamentary vote. Nobody in the Conservatives or Labour would ever vote for that unless their vote share dwindled to that of a 3rd party.

But I agree that the Lib Dems were mad not to be more aggressive in their bargaining. Or maybe they should have just gone for a confidence and supply arrangement and left the Conservatives high and dry the minute they stopped getting what they wanted. Once the Lib Dems reneged on their promise about tuition fees, their goose was cooked. That's probably not something they would have felt so compelled to do if they hadn't gone into government.

In fact, I think they were also mad not to explore the possibility of a Labour coalition first. Yes, Labour were a brand on the wane at the time, but if Brown had stepped down and someone with new direction took his place it mightn't have had as bad optics.

Capt'n Midnight

sondagefaux wrote: »

But as the saying goes, power delegated is power retained (as it can be undelegated).

You can tell the UK's regional Assembly all about that



At some stage the UK will have to do trade deals.

The UK currently sends £350m to the European Space Agency.
But that money won't be going to the NHS, because from now on the UK will spend 15% more on membership.



The Mexicans were upset that the US changed the trade deal at the last minute to allow the US to monitor labour compliance in Mexico. And this is a deal where the basics were done 25 years ago and the last year has been spent with the US making changes to suit itself. The UK has this to look forward to.

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
- Darth Vader US

In other news. The US no longer has a free trade deal with Wakanda.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-wakanda/wakanda-free-trade-forever-fictional-nation-removed-from-u-s-trade-list-idUSKBN1YN0FN

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

Minor quibble: the Commission proposes laws. Laws are created when they're enacted by the Parliament and/or Council.

True, however at the same time no law can be enacted without first being proposed by the Commission as the has the sole power to propose legislation.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

I don't see rules that give the leaders of the countries that make up the EU the power to nominate candidates for the head of the Commission, who can either be confirmed or rejected by the directly elected Parliament, as being an example of a democratic deficit.

However when, as per the rules, the candidate is put before the Parliament at that point it is the only candidate. To compare this with a national democracy, imagine that during our presidential election here, the electorate was presented with just one presidential candidate that it could accept or reject. If it rejected the candidate then a few months another candidate would be selected and voted upon and so on until one was accepted but each time the country only gets one choice and none of them might what the electorate would chose given a free choice among several candidates.

However I am not against the Council having an input. That is why I suggested that they be allowed to put their own choice forward along with others from the Parliament, then allowing Parliament to choose.

Enzokk

The Tories are terrible and they only care for the elite, Labour would never screw over the hard working people on the ground while the elites live in their own bubble,


Labour party staff angry at handling of possible redundancies

Labour party staff who are angry that they face losing their jobs while senior aides to Jeremy Corbyn remain on the payroll have been called in to meetings to discuss possible redundancies.

A leaked email sent on Wednesday shows that workers and advisers from the offices of the Labour leader and shadow ministers have been invited to meetings with their line managers following Thursday’s catastrophic election result.

So the two people who share a lot of the blame was rewarded just before the election with permanent contracts. I wonder what prompted this? Must have been the brilliant polling numbers that showed these were two people worthy to be kept by the party.

As for the Tories, well,

https://twitter.com/seanwhelanRTE/status/1207601355399016450?s=20

So we are back to the rubbish about the EU blinking because more damage will be done to the EU than the UK. Not Ireland mind you, but Germany and Holland will come to the rescue this time, much like the automakers did before...

Dymo

Enzokk wrote: »

So we are back to the rubbish about the EU blinking because more damage will be done to the EU than the UK. Not Ireland mind you, but Germany and Holland will come to the rescue this time, much like the automakers did before...

I hope Boris appoints Davis again as the brexit secretary.

Enzokk

There has been a few interesting moments of MP's being sworn in. I wonder why this wasn't ever thought of when doing the oath,

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1207672142223069186?s=20

And then we have the Pagan Kendall doing her thing.

Labour MP Liz Kendall admits she is 'godless' in light-hearted 'hot mic' moment in the Commons as MPs are sworn in

Leeds MP Ms Reeves could be head asking: 'Don’t you believe in God?'

To which Ms Kendall, 48, said: 'No. I’m godless. Yep, sorry guys.'

Ms Reeves could then be heard saying: 'Me and Pat are going to be taking the Bible.

'We’ve got two Bibles, haven’t we Pat?'

Ms Kendall then put her hand over the microphone normally used to pick up the words of ministers speaking at the Despatch Box, in an effort to block it.

But it did not stop people watching the process online from being able to hear her say: 'I’m the pagan Kendall, what can I do? My parents are so upset. I’m not a pagan, but you know what I mean.'

reslfj

Dymo wrote: »

I hope Boris appoints Davis again as the brexit secretary.

The EU27 will surely want a very competent UK negotiator - and DD is anything but !

Lars

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

There has been a few interesting moments of MP's being sworn in. I wonder why this wasn't ever thought of when doing the oath,

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1207672142223069186?s=20

It shows that the Sinn Fein reasons for objecting to the oath are not very plausible. Also, the MP for Cornwall made the pledge in Cornish yesterday.

johnnyskeleton

Strazdas wrote: »

It shows that the Sinn Fein reasons for objecting to the oath are not very plausible. Also, the MP for Cornwall made the pledge in Cornish yesterday.

The oath objection is only one reason for absentionism as fsr as I know. Its also about refusing to participate in the Uk government and so give democratic legitimacy to their occupation of the North.

I can see both points have merit, to be honest, but fair play to Eastwood

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/seanwhelanRTE/status/1207601355399016450?s=20

So we are back to the rubbish about the EU blinking because more damage will be done to the EU than the UK. Not Ireland mind you, but Germany and Holland will come to the rescue this time, much like the automakers did before...

Is he saying that the EU must do a deal because theyre under pressure, while simultaneously saying that they have been stalling to put the pressure on the UK? Who exactly does he think time limits put pressure on? Or does he think the Tory victory makes a jot of difference to the EU? It must be so difficult trying to keep your story straight as a Brexiteer.

sondagefaux

briany wrote: »

To be honest, the PR would have had even less chance were it put to a parliamentary vote. Nobody in the Conservatives or Labour would ever vote for that unless their vote share dwindled to that of a 3rd party.

But I agree that the Lib Dems were mad not to be more aggressive in their bargaining. Or maybe they should have just gone for a confidence and supply arrangement and left the Conservatives high and dry the minute they stopped getting what they wanted. Once the Lib Dems reneged on their promise about tuition fees, their goose was cooked. That's probably not something they would have felt so compelled to do if they hadn't gone into government.

In fact, I think they were also mad not to explore the possibility of a Labour coalition first. Yes, Labour were a brand on the wane at the time, but if Brown had stepped down and someone with new direction took his place it mightn't have had as bad optics.

Not now obviously, but the Lib Dems could have insisted on it as part of the coalition deal with the Tories in 2010. They could also have insisted on abolishing university tuition fees in 2010, and a lot more besides. They sold themselves far too cheaply for what they got out of the coalition, which amounted to little or nothing and they put themselves out of contention for being even the third largest party in the House of Commons for years to come.

briany

sondagefaux wrote: »

Not now obviously, but the Lib Dems could have insisted on it as part of the coalition deal with the Tories in 2010. They could also have insisted on abolishing university tuition fees in 2010, and a lot more besides. They sold themselves far too cheaply for what they got out of the coalition, which amounted to little or nothing and they put themselves out of contention for being even the third largest party in the House of Commons for years to come.

The clue should have been in the names, anyway. One party says it's liberal, the other says it's conservative. That's chalk and cheese. They don't mix, and they didn't mix. At best, one subsumes the other, and that's basically what happened whereby the Lib Dems just had to follow the whip and be additional Conservative MPs.