Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

This, of course, is simplifying things hugely; there are a lot more advantages and disadvantages I could list for each of these approaches, but the point is that not every country is going to opt for one particular vision of how countries should be organized.

The main advantage you omitted is how the Single Market has created the scale and efficiences to enable EU companies compete globally.

You didn't elaborate on how EU members are losing out by sharing common rules. Any examples?

Dyr

First Up wrote: »

Are you also proposing that the Irish Civil Service be directly elected? Fascinating idea.

All 37,000 or just the heads of Departments? How often should elections be held?

There is no comparison between the Irish Civil Service and the European Commison, the Irish Civil Service does not wield exectuive power. Prodi, Junker, and Barroso were not civil servants. In fact, the term "Commision" is a complete misnomer, Verhofstad suggested calling it the "European Goverment" which is a bit closer its actual function.

listermint

Bambi wrote: »

There is no comparison between the Irish Civil Service and the European Commison, the Irish Civil Service does not wield exectuive power. Prodi, Junker, and Barroso were not civil servants. In fact, the term "Commision" is a complete misnomer, Verhofstad suggested calling it the "European Goverment" which is a bit closer its actual function.

You don't think Irish civil servants wield executive power.


Really!


Lol

Bit cynical

Bambi wrote: »

There is no comparison between the Irish Civil Service and the European Commison, the Irish Civil Service does not wield exectuive power. Prodi, Junker, and Barroso were not civil servants. In fact, the term "Commision" is a complete misnomer, Verhofstad suggested calling it the "European Goverment" which is a bit closer its actual function.

The EU has not developed the concept of separation of powers so the Commission has executive, administrative, legislative and quasi-judicial capacities.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

You didn't elaborate on how EU members are losing out by sharing common rules. Any examples?

I'm not disputing that there are some advantages to sharing common rules but of course not every rule is going to suit every country. For example common subsidized agriculture which is part of EU policy is not going to suit necessarily heavily industrialized countries which might prefer to subsidize their agriculture independently. They go along with it to gain benefits in other areas.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU has not developed the concept of separation of powers so the Commission has executive, administrative, legislative and quasi-judicial capacities.

As does the US president, I guess the US has not developed the concept of seperation of powers either. :rolleyes:

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

I'm not disputing that there are some advantages to sharing common rules but of course not every rule is going to suit every country. For example common subsidized agriculture which is part of EU policy is not going to suit necessarily heavily industrialized countries which might prefer to subsidize their agriculture independently. They go along with it to gain benefits in other areas.

And they have (wisely) calculated that those benefits outweigh the bits that don't suit them.

lawred2

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not so much that there's an alternative that is the ideal and solves all problems. Every course of action will solve some problems and create others. There's no one ideal that every country needs to follow.

The advantage of an EU-style grouping is that collectively there's clout when dealing with external entities. The disadvantage is that some national interests must be subsumed for the good of the whole.

The advantage of not being part of such a grouping is that ones national interest is not subsumed by the collective interests of a lot of other countries. The disadvantage is less influence externally.

This, of course, is simplifying things hugely; there are a lot more advantages and disadvantages I could list for each of these approaches, but the point is that not every country is going to opt for one particular vision of how countries should be organized.

So you mean an objective fact based CBA is a necessity then!

Like 350m on a bus.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

And they have (wisely) calculated that those benefits outweigh the bits that don't suit them.

Yeah. The EU is a messy, imperfect compromise between 28 member states (soon to be 27) who border each other and have competing and conflicting interests. It's not perfect, nor is it supposed to be. It's supposed to be something that its member states can live with, even if grudgingly.

The executive is supposed to be separated from the legislature. If it were to be elected, you'd have interminable rowing and squabbling about how this would be done, ie an FPTP system where enough votes in a few countries would net victory or a US-style system where effectively, each country would get the same number of votes.

You'd have the same carry on that happens with elections with parties endeavouring to control both the legislative and executive branches of government with the result being either petty politics jamming the process or a complete lack of scrutiny.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Yeah. The EU is a messy, imperfect compromise between 28 member states (soon to be 27) who border each other and have competing and conflicting interests. It's not perfect, nor is it supposed to be. It's supposed to be something that its member states can live with, even if grudgingly.

The key words there are member states; voluntary members of a set of agreed collaborations and sovereign democratic states that control their own destinies.

Some people struggle to understand it (this forum is evidence) because it is a closer union than any other multinational framework and also because they confuse the role of EU insitutions with those that operate inside individual states.

Thus, calls for EU wide elections to the European parliament misunderstand both the role of that parliament and the fact that each member state already has its own directly elected sovereign parliament, of which the EU is the union.

Too complicated and unfamiliar for some and exploited by those with other agendas trying to sow fear and mistrust.

The irrefutable counter argument to all of it is that the EU works. It has enabled the longest period of peace and prosperity Europe has ever enjoyed and has created an economic bloc that can compete with any other on the planet.

The 19th century nationalists have no answer to that, hence the accusations of superstate conspiracies, conscription to European armies, "unelected elites" and the other jargon.

Don't mind them; the EU works - for Ireland and all others. The sad part is that it was working for the UK too but some ghosts are too hard to dispel with mere facts and logic.

Strazdas

First Up wrote: »

The key words there are member states; voluntary members of a set of agreed collaborations and sovereign democratic states that control their own destinies.

Some people struggle to understand it (this forum is evidence) because it is a closer union than any other multinational framework and also because they confuse the role of EU insitutions with those that operate inside individual states.

Thus, calls for EU wide elections to the European parliament misunderstand both the role of that parliament and the fact that each member state already has its own directly elected sovereign parliament, of which the EU is the union.

Too complicated and unfamiliar for some and exploited by those with other agendas trying to sow fear and mistrust.

The irrefutable counter argument to all of it is that the EU works. It has enabled the longest period of peace and prosperity Europe has ever enjoyed and has created an economic bloc that can compete with any other on the planet.

The 19th century nationalists have no answer to that, hence the accusations of superstate conspiracies, conscription to European armies, "unelected elites" and the other jargon.

Don't mind them; the EU works - for Ireland and all others. The sad part is that it was working for the UK too but some ghosts are too hard to dispel with mere facts and logic.

The funny thing is that even the 1973 version of the EEC would have been way too integrated for the current English nationalists and reactionaries. According to their narrative, the UK cannot belong to any body that involves loss of sovereignty, no matter how slight.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

The funny thing is that even the 1973 version of the EEC would have been way too integrated for the current English nationalists and reactionaries. According to their narrative, the UK cannot belong to any body that involves loss of sovereignty, no matter how slight.

And the most ironic thing of all is that they continually hark on about their own union, which is many more times more integrated and involves much greater loss of sovereignty then they complain about.

fly_agaric

First Up wrote: »

The main advantage you omitted is how the Single Market has created the scale and efficiences to enable EU companies compete globally.

You didn't elaborate on how EU members are losing out by sharing common rules. Any examples?

If I may, I suppose the dreaded fish are sometimes a go to here aren't they?
It's an illustrative example because, say you are a small island nation with a potentially very large and lucrative "EEZ" surrounding you.

Well theoretically you could have huge marine resources in that that you control & have full sovereignty over. Far more than if you are pooling them somehow, agreeing common policies regarding fishing (or perhaps resource exploitation also) via a super-national framework.

However if you do not actually have the wherewithal to defend and exploit the resources yourself any tom dick or harry (probably from one of those global powers Verhovstadt was on about) can come in and just rob you blind (e.g. what is happening in Cyprus, South China sea etc for real examples). Your enhanced sovereignty really is only a paper construct/permitted to the extent others allow it to you.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the most ironic thing of all is that they continually hark on about their own union, which is many more times more integrated and involves much greater loss of sovereignty then they complain about.

Yes, witness how Scotland and NI have to leave the EU because England voted for it. They don't even see this as remotely contentious or controversial.

First Up

fly_agaric wrote:

Well theoretically you could have huge marine resources in that that you control & have fully sovereignty over. Far more than if you are pooling them somehow, agreeing common policies regarding fishing (or perhaps resource exploitation also) via a super-national framework.

Do you think we should swap our full access to 26 markets (and the foreign investment that attracts) and membership of a powerful trade bloc for exclusive rights to all the fish we can eat?

fly_agaric

First Up wrote: »

Do you think we should swap our full access to 26 markets (and the foreign investment that attracts) and membership of a powerful trade bloc for exclusive rights to all the fish we can eat?

Not at all, I quoted you but would be on your side of the argument! It is only a single policy area anyway.

It is not a good example of benefits of pooling sovereignty for UK because they do have the military + economic power to defend and exploit their own EEZ (we of course don't though!).

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the most ironic thing of all is that they continually hark on about their own union, which is many more times more integrated and involves much greater loss of sovereignty then they complain about.

Well only for Scotland, Wales and NI.

darem93

It's actually funny if the UK operated more like the EU, there would be a much better chance of it surviving over the next 10 years and a lot less of a push for independence in certain parts of it.

boring accountant

First Up wrote: »

Are you also proposing that the Irish Civil Service be directly elected? Fascinating idea.

All 37,000 or just the heads of Departments? How often should elections be held?

Comparing the EU Commissioner to a mere Civil Servant shows you are completely ignorant of the powers of the EU. Civil Servants don’t decide policy. I think you should take yourself up on your previous admonition to educate oneself about the EU.

boring accountant

lawred2 wrote: »

this unelected trope is getting beyond boring at this stage... people wholly ignorant of how civic democratic societies are organised or function spouting crap about how anyone with the slightest responsibility for anything should be elected and if such a process does not exist then their role holds no legitimacy.

Seriously, have these people mindlessly regurgitating this stuff gone through their entire lives unaware of the civil service?

Does this sound like a Civil Service to you? From the Commissions own website. Under any other system this would be an elected position.

“The Commission is the EU institution that has the monopoly on legislative initiative and important executive powers in policies such as competition and external trade. It is the principal executive body of the European Union and it is formed by a College of members composed of one Commissioner per Member State. The Commission oversees the application of Union law and respect for the Treaties by the Member States; it also chairs the committees responsible for the implementation of EU law. The former comitology system has been replaced by new legal instruments, namely implementing and delegated acts.“

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

Does this sound like a Civil Service to you? From the Commissions own website. Under any other system this would be an elected position.

“The Commission is the EU institution that has the monopoly on legislative initiative and important executive powers in policies such as competition and external trade. It is the principal executive body of the European Union and it is formed by a College of members composed of one Commissioner per Member State. The Commission oversees the application of Union law and respect for the Treaties by the Member States; it also chairs the committees responsible for the implementation of EU law. The former comitology system has been replaced by new legal instruments, namely implementing and delegated acts.“

Who choose those who choose a commissioner?

fly_agaric

boring accountant wrote:

Comparing the EU Commissioner to a mere Civil Servant shows you are completely ignorant of the powers of the EU. Civil Servants don’t decide policy. I think you should take yourself up on your previous admonishing to educated oneself about the EU.

Does EU Commission not propse policy?
I thought they don't "decide" if actually implemented or not - is that not Parliament & Council afterwards (my Dummy level understanding of EU workings)?
Of course proposing & originating the stuff is a very important power and fact that role is left (I think) to Commission alone gives them more relative weight in the system than civil servants here I think.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who choose those who choose a commissioner?

Well, the Germans and the French have a long standing agreement that the Germans put their creature in the Commission and the French put theirs in the ECB. So they haggle over whom they should nominate. Then the candidate for president was presented to the Council for an up down vote and various states were then bribed for their votes by divying up the seats on the Commission. Then the nominee is presented to the Parliament for another up down vote.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

Well, the Germans and the French have a long standing agreement that the Germans put their creature in the Commission and the French put theirs in the ECB. So they haggle over whom they should nominate. Then the candidate for president was presented to the Council for an up down vote and various states were then bribed for their votes by divying up the seats on the Commission. Then the nominee is presented to the Parliament for another up down vote.

So they are voted into their position by people who were voted into their position. Just like a taoiseach.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So they are voted into their position by people who were voted into their position. Just like a taoiseach.

Except in a normal election people know who the leader will be if a certain party wins. It would be like if the US president was elected by the governors of all 50 states.

The most important part of any election cycle is the campaign because it’s where promises are made to the public and the public gets to see and judge their leaders. An election without a campaign is not in the spirit of democracy.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

Except in a normal election people know who the leader will be if a certain party wins. It would be like if the US president was elected by the governors of all 50 states.

The most important part of any election cycle is the campaign because it’s where promises are made to the public and the public gets to see and judge their leaders. An election without a campaign is not in the spirit of democracy.

How was Varadkar elected? Johnson?

Water John

It's the diff between looking for a, strong leader and an office holder. EU officials, Commissioners etc, know that they inhabit an office/position. It is not largely about them as individuals.
A whole new raft came in recently, yet the EU largely won't change its nature.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How was Varadkar elected? Johnson?

Is this supposed to be some kind of trump card? That’s a quirk of the system that happens when a leader resigns. It’s not how it functions at all times. Also, political parties generally pick the person they think is most likely to win re-election and if they don’t they will be punished for it at the ballot box.

seamus

boring accountant wrote: »

Except in a normal election people know who the leader will be if a certain party wins. It would be like if the US president was elected by the governors of all 50 states.

If the US president was elected by the governors, then nobody would know who the next President is until they're appointed.

Nevertheless, nothing you have said changes the fact that leaders are basically never directly elected. They are appointed to their positions by people who have been directly elected.

In a normal election you only know who will probably be the next Taoiseach. If FG won a majority but Leo lost his seat, the election wouldn't need to be re-run. Someone else would become Taoiseach.

boring accountant

seamus wrote: »

If the US president was elected by the governors, then nobody would know who the next President is until they're appointed.

Nevertheless, nothing you have said changes the fact that leaders are basically never directly elected. They are appointed to their positions by people who have been directly elected.

In a normal election you only know who will probably be the next Taoiseach. If FG won a majority but Leo lost his seat, the election wouldn't need to be re-run. Someone else would become Taoiseach.

We don’t even know who will probably be elected to the Commission at election time.

What if scenarios being presented are really quite rare and are bugs in the system not features of it.