RayC

The EU can only act within the boundaries set by its' Treaties. Various Treaties over the past 50 years have increased its' scope of influence that is undeniable. However, Treaty change requires unanimous approval from each member state. When the UK was a member it could have vetoed any new Treaty. EU legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council. Again, if the UK had disagreed with a proposal when it was a member, it could have voted against the measure. If the proposal was subject to majority voting and the UK was on the losing side then, yes, it would still have to implement the legislation. But why is that a problem? An agreed democratic process has been followed: Democracy in action.

Because it's not against the law and her government has a majority in parliament.

I assume that you mean that sovereignty was? We've been here many times before. Between 1997 - 2016, the UK was forced to enact 3% of EU legislation which it had voted against. So all this turmoil for what is, in effect, 3% more sovereignty. A price worth paying? Not imo.

The EU cannot expel a member state but member states are free to leave the EU. How does that make the EU, "the Klingon Empire"?

The updated energy price guarantee was announced early last week before the budget, and its' effects had been largely priced in by the markets. The subsequent falls in the FTSE indexes and in the pound - not just against the dollar but against most other major currencies - was almost entirely due to the measures announced in the budget. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies abolishing the 45% tax band will cost the Exchequer £6bn and benefit 600,000 (1.1% of the UK adult population) by an average of £22,000/year each. Traditional economic theory states that lower income groups spend more of any increased income than higher income groups (In Economics parlance the marginal propensity to consume decreases as income rises), therefore in order to stimulate growth the poorest - rather than the richest - individuals should be targeted e.g. by raising the tax allowance. Truss and Kwarteng obviously reject this orthodoxy. All Brits had best hope that they are right, otherwise we will return to the dog days of the 1970s. (Bolding unintentional)

Good morning/ afternoon and .. err .. goodbye. Sorry if you think that I'm late but it's (relatively) early here and I haven't been up long.

You previously claimed that the general public were well informed about the EU but here you state that many UK parliamentarians - whose job it is to be informed of such matters - only had (have?) a basic knowledge of the EU. If you are correct, the logical conclusion is that the UK general public were (are?) better informed about the EU than many of those individuals who they entrust to make laws on their behalf. A sad state of affairs. Rather than entrust our future to incompetent individuals in Westminster, perhaps, we should look elsewhere? How about Brussels?

What is the point then? You raised it! No doubt if the figure was 90% you would argue that the European taxpayer's money was being wasted as few of the proposals were being implemented. Any evidence to support that claim? Alternatively, the EU provides a service by drafting and proposing legislation that the parliaments of the member states do not have time for. It's comical how you blame all the sins of the world on the EU without a shread of evidence to back up your claims.

Is this any different to what happens in London or Washington? In 2021, 10% of proposals were either rejected by the European Parliament or withdrawn by the Commission. In 2016, 50% of the proposals were amended by either Parliament or the Council. (I can't find figures for later years) Being pedantic, a Regulation becomes automatically enforceable by law in the member states. A Directive, as you say, requires member states to pass the law without amendment in their respective parliaments. Whose fault was it that there was a backlog in passing EU directives into law in the UK?

Any particular reason? Too difficult to reconcile the conflicting answers maybe?

.... or underneath my feet. We obviously have a different sense of humour if you found it amusing. Why should I object to this article? It's just repeating the numbers. Have you done/read/ listened to a broader analysis of the measures before (apparently) making up your mind that they are for the best? If not, you are the one with the agenda, not me. As I wrote previously, Truss is being true to her word. If these initiatives work then great, the country will be in a better place. If not, we are probably b@#£ered for a decade or so. (Bolding unintended)

The 2 year timescale associated with Article 50 could only have been extended with the agreement of both sides. Therefore, if the UK government was unhappy with progress, it could have simply walked away after two years. The mechanism for calculating the UK's financial obligations was agreed in December 2017, so I imagine that in the event of a 'No deal' - and the lack of an agreement on the UK's "divorce bill" - the matter would have gone to arbitration. Re citizens rights: Imo both sides conduct was a disgrace, and it often appeared to me to be a race for the moral low ground. Nevertheless, if a 'No deal' had occurred, I imagine that a similar deal to what we have now would have been quickly been put into place. In summary, there were no legal obstacles - or overwhelming practical reasons - preventing the UK from letting the clock run down and leaving the EU with 'No deal' two years after Article 50 was invoked (or at any time thereafter at the end of the various extension phases). In previous posts, you have implied/ inferred that the UK public was well informed about the EU, but you now suggest UK government ministers and parliamentarians were ignorant of the extent of the EU's influence in British politics. Surely both can't be true? The only people who really knew (know?) what's going on are the Civil Service?

Apart from the fact that the UK government wants to reopen them (The Irish Protocol).

Clearly I wasn't as (disclosure!!!) I didn't vote 'Leave'. On the count of '3', you will awaken and realise that you were sold a pup ... 1, 2 ... oh, what the hell, if you are happy to believe in a post-Brexit utopian fantasy world, who am I to interfere?

And whoever thought up this analogy, and thinks that this is how an economy functions, clearly has no knowledge of economics.

I don't understand what you mean? Are you suggesting that the Tories are deliberately trying to make matters worse?

To be fair to Truss and Kwarteng, they stated that they rejected Treasury (Economic) orthodoxy and they have done just that. If it works then they will deserve another term. If it doesn't then forthcoming government(s) could be left trying to repair the damage for the next decade or more.

"No deal is better than a bad deal" Wasn't that another of the mantras? If the EU was being so unreasonable, why didn't the UK government simply walk away? In any event, it simply confirms that the UK was the junior partner in the negotiations. The fact also remains that the UK government has not spent an extra £250m/ week on the NHS, and that the EU has nothing to do with this non occurrence.

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first? Are you suggesting that the UK outside of the EU is not free to spend the weekly £350m "savings" on the NHS as promised because the structure of the EU still somehow prevents this even though we are no longer governed by its' regulation? The Brexit bus message might have lacked validity, but imo it persuaded a significant number of people to vote 'Leave'. A charge that could equally be levied against the UK government. The truth is that the EU was always going to have the stronger negotiating hand and it played it well (aided, I must be said, by the ineptitude of the UK side). This continues to be the case today.

????That is probably a universal truth????

Good morning/ afternoon, Trans. Hope all is well? Raymond? Only my mother ever called me Raymond! PS 4am is a bit early for me????

I am not being churlish. I am disagreeing with your premise that in order to be a patriot, you also have to be a monarchist.

Goodwill will only come into play if the partners trust each other. It's hardly surprising that it was/is in short supply given that the UK backtracked - and continues to backtrack - on its commitments. Why should this be amusing? 27 other states remain independent within the EU as did the UK when it was a member.

Which basically consisted of the right wing press falsely stating that the EU forced rules on the unwilling UK when, in reality, up until the referendum the UK had to enact only 3% of EU legislation against its' wishes. I'd hardly call that better informed. (Please don't ask for a link. I have supplied it numerous times in the past. You should be able to find it somewhere on fullfacts.org). It is almost invariably the case that the senior partner in a bi-lateral negotiation dictates the process and outcome, so it was no surprise that the EU dictated matters. Not much May could have done about it (even if she could have dealt with the back-stabbing ERG members in her own party). You didn't fall for that old claptrap about the EU needing us more than we need them, did you? Probably because it didn't foresee a member state being stupid enough to want to leave. Why "typical EU"? The NI unionists were more than happy when they held the balance of power. They were also victims of May's ill-judged gamble to call an election. They probably knew that Johnson and the ERG would have no qualms about throwing them under a bus when the need arose. Completely disagree. The main concern of the Scottish loyalists is to remain part of the UK. If that meant staying in the EU then so be it. In 10 years time, there is the distinct possibility that a Scottish loyalist may find him/herself part of an independent Scotland within the EU. If so, it will be at least, partly due to the result of the vote to leave (the EU) and the subsequent deal. No unionist would have voted for that.

I'll play the pedant here. The majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote, voted to leave. Nevertheless, you are correct. The result of the referendum was clear: The UK should leave the EU. However, were the majority of Britons better informed about the EU than they were in the '70s? Questionable. And if they were, was the information that they were provided with factually correct? Highly debatable? In any event, I doubt that many people - Leave or Remain - foresaw the type of deal that would be signed or its' effects. This leads to a number of questions. Would those in NI who voted 'Leave', do so now given the problems that have been created/(re)surfaced there? Would a 'Leave' voting Scottish loyalist have voted that way if s/he had realised that this would increase support, and lend a certain amount of legitimacy, to calls for another Scottish referendum? All hypothetical questions of course, and any answers are pure conjecture but I have my doubts.