UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Agree with you 100%.

 

The problem to me is that we are not getting the quality politicians that we are paying for.

Quite, and I do not see that changing anytime soon, they are so used to manipulating the truth it has become a way of life.

That is why I feel it is safer to share responsibility for the future with Europe. People tend to forget that the EU commission are chosen representatives of our neighbours and not some form of secret police.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Unsurprisingly, you have missed my point.

 

 

If I join a golf club, I join according to their predetermined set of rules; if I leave that golf club I exit in accordance with their predetermined rules.

 

The EU is just a large golf club.

Nothing wrong with that, apart from TM not wanting to "exit in accordance with their predetermined rules."

The SM is a predetermined rule and she wants them to change it to suit the UK because they want to leave the club.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

13 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite, and I do not see that changing anytime soon, they are so used to manipulating the truth it has become a way of life.

That is why I feel it is safer to share responsibility for the future with Europe. People tend to forget that the EU commission are chosen representatives of our neighbours and not some form of secret police.

 

Chosen...but not elected. And certainly not by the people of the countries they supposedly represent.

 

The crux of the democracy issue. Our politicians are often just as futile or nefarious as the EU's, but at least we can elect and depose them.

[sandyf]

17 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I'd be interested to hear latest opinions on TM's proposed deal, with the key elements of the Chequers agreement being:

 

- No more substantial payments into the EU

- Common rulebook for goods, avoiding border friction

- The above meaning no hard border and no Irish Sea border for NI

- No more freedom of movement

- Out of the CFP

- Out of the CAP

- End of the ECJ’s role in UK affairs

- In future the UK parliament would have the ability to further remove us from the EU, e.g. scrap elements of the common rulebook (with consequences)

 

My fear would be that this is the opening gambit from May, meaning that the final negotiated version would have further compromises on our side.

Presumably the EU would never agree to all of this, because it doesn't 'punish' the UK enough.

 

Remainers and Leavers -  how do you feel about Chequers now we're another few weeks closer to the deadline? Am I the only one who thinks it looks like a decent compromise?

 

Yes, she is very good at telling people what she does not want but a bit vague on explaining what she does want.

 

She wants to remain in the SM without FoM or services being involved, this both breaches the EU principles and the Single Market Act, but she doesn't see a problem with that, they should change.

She wants to retain access to all EU facilities regarding security without any obligation to the EU.

She wants EASA to treat the UK as a member, without being a member, does not want that because of the ECJ.

 

For some reason she thinks that if she wants something people should agree and then can't understand why they don't.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

16 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Only with bold, visionary leadership.

I tend to agree. It will require strong and inspired leadership. Exactly where it will come from I'm not sure as of yet. Perhaps a combined effort of a select few in politics and the hope of more waiting in the wings. 

[BwindiBoy]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Ah, the master of critical thinking rides again.

I think the topic you were looking for was Bating.

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

Chosen...but not elected. And certainly not by the people of the countries they supposedly represent.

 

The crux of the democracy issue. Our politicians are often just as futile or nefarious as the EU's, but at least we can elect and depose them.

Same old story, you want to forget that the UK PM and government ministers are chosen not elected by the people, and not to mention HoL.

 

At the end of the day, all legislation, in both EU and UK, must be passed by parliament, and both parliaments are elected by the people.

In both cases final decision lies with the representatives of the people, end of story.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Same old story, you want to forget that the UK PM and government ministers are chosen not elected by the people, and not to mention HoL.

 

At the end of the day, all legislation, in both EU and UK, must be passed by parliament, and both parliaments are elected by the people.

In both cases final decision lies with the representatives of the people, end of story.

It's good that you still keep on explaining this. I have mostly given up. Some people simply doesn't want to learn the truth.

[My Thai Life]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

This deal has been on offer for over a year - it's just the UK rejected it as it didn't give enough access to the single market and would damage British industry .

 

This is a slide from Tusks presentation to the first negotiating session

Thanks for the slide of Tusk's presentation. It's the best summary of the pre-existing options I've ever seen.

 

However, these are the pre-existing options. There's no reason that a new option should not be considered. The UK's trade with the EU is worth far far far more than any of the nations on those pre-existing options;  other UK-EU relationships, for example security and research, are also far more significant than with those nations; the UK's economy is also much larger.

[tebee]

Sometimes you need to be outside to see what is happening inside - this is the US Embassy's accestment of brexit 

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

45 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Same old story, you want to forget that the UK PM and government ministers are chosen not elected by the people, and not to mention HoL.

 

At the end of the day, all legislation, in both EU and UK, must be passed by parliament, and both parliaments are elected by the people.

In both cases final decision lies with the representatives of the people, end of story.

Dear oh dear. Is it willful ignorance or just being totally uninformed ? I always wonder which. End of the day, it is the power to legislate that counts and always has been.

 

'In essence, the European Commission proposes and implements legislation and the European Council sets the strategic direction of the European Union. The other two important institutions are the Council of Ministers and European Parliament who adopt legislation. ... The European Commission is the executive body.'

 

The EU Parliament votes legislation into law, but it doesn't propose, design or implement this legislation. The Commission does as its the Exec. body. No citizenry elects any of the people within it. It's very firmly a clique.  (the Commission is the only body that can propose^[a] EU laws).  So where does the power lie? MEPs have admitted as much - they can only attempt to block ratification etc. They have no legislative power whatsoever and never have done.

 

'The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts.' The House of Lords instead scrutinises bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.^[9] It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons but is unable to prevent Bills passing into law.

 

'In the UK and Canada, the Commons holds much more legislative power than the respective upper house of parliament' and yes although the Prime Minister is the 'party-appointed' leader of the majority party within the Commons you have the choice to vote him/her in or out at a Gen. Election.

 

As EU law generally supersedes UK law and supposedly upward of 70% of legislation imposed within the UK is created in Brussels/Strasbourg, who is really in control here? Our own democratically elected politicians and hereditary peers or a commission in a foreign country who aren't answerable to any of the nation state's publics?

 

And are these two systems really comparable? No. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[tebee]

15 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Thanks for the slide of Tusk's presentation. It's the best summary of the pre-existing options I've ever seen.

 

However, these are the pre-existing options. There's no reason that a new option should not be considered. The UK's trade with the EU is worth far far far more than any of the nations on those pre-existing options;  other UK-EU relationships, for example security and research, are also far more significant than with those nations; the UK's economy is also much larger.

 

 

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, a new different arrangement could be far better. But the EU decided that, if the UK wanted to leave via the article 50 route with it's two year deadline, there wasn't anything like enough time to negotiate such a deal and get it passed by legislatures on both sides. So any deal would have to based on an existing model.

 

The slide was designed to show what sort of deal each of the UK red lines eliminated - I guess they thought we might soften on some.

 

Of course we then wasted three quarters of the 2  years before coming up with a plan of our own, which it is beginning to looks as if we can't agree on internally anyway. 

 

We are either going to get some sort of last minute panic/capitulate deal  or we crash out without any deal. Or just give the whole thing up as a bad idea of course. 

[My Thai Life]

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

this is the US Embassy's accestment of brexit 

I know we've heard from Trump and Obama about Brexit, but the US Embassy doesn't have an official position does it? 

 

This unattributed video says very little, and what it does say is mere assertion or incorrect. Frankly, the level of (some of) the debate on this forum is infinitely better quality,

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I know we've heard from Trump and Obama about Brexit, but the US Embassy doesn't have an official position does it? 

 

This unattributed video says very little, and what it does say is mere assertion or incorrect. Frankly, the level of (some of) the debate on this forum is infinitely better quality,

 

 

It's from here https://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/inside-the-american-embassy-episode-synopses

 

It's their internal assessment of what is happening/will happen 

 

They need to be prepared too ! Maybe they are prepared better than the rest of the UK....

[My Thai Life]

9 minutes ago, tebee said:

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, a new different arrangement could be far better. But the EU decided that, if the UK wanted to leave via the article 50 route with it's two year deadline, there wasn't anything like enough time to negotiate such a deal and get it passed by legislatures on both sides. So any deal would have to based on an existing model.

That depends very much on whether the deal was expected to be fully negotiated before the 2 year deadline, or whether a framework agreement needed to be in place by that deadline.

 

If the 2 year A50 period was intended to include the time necessary for a full Free Trade Agreement (among other possibilities) then A50 is clearly inadequate. The UK is the first nation to test A50. Maybe we can offer consulting services to nations who will use it in the future ????

Edited October 5, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

That depends very much on whether the deal was expected to be fully negotiated before the 2 year deadline, or whether a framework agreement needed to be in place by that deadline.

 

If the 2 year A50 period was intended to include the time necessary for a full Free Trade Agreement (among other possibilities) then A50 is clearly inadequate. The UK is the first nation to test the A50. Maybe we can offer consulting services to nations who will use it in the future ????

The 2 year period was to get a deal fully done between the two parties.

 

In case of a deal, accepted by both parties, UK will be given a transit period, to allow UK to implement these changes. was it 1.5 years? 

 

During this time, UK obey EU's rules, but can transform it's own society smoothly to the next phase of her life. Doing the international and bilateral deals around the world. 

 

In case of no-deal, there is no transit period and UK is left quite alone, without any deals to the rest of the world. This would be really interesting experiment to witness, should UK choose no-deal option. 

[Orac]

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

That depends very much on whether the deal was expected to be fully negotiated before the 2 year deadline, or whether a framework agreement needed to be in place by that deadline.

 

If the 2 year A50 period was intended to include the time necessary for a full Free Trade Agreement (among other possibilities) then A50 is clearly inadequate. The UK is the first nation to test the A50. Maybe we can offer consulting services to nations who will use it in the future ????

 

Two year A50 period is really for damage limitation for the EU with just a possible framework for future relations. The obvious point being that, at the point any EU country triggerred A50, they wouldn't be stupid enough to do so without having a clear plan of where they wanted to be after those two years and having resources in place to carry out that plan.

[tebee]

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

That depends very much on whether the deal was expected to be fully negotiated before the 2 year deadline, or whether a framework agreement needed to be in place by that deadline.

 

If the 2 year A50 period was intended to include the time necessary for a full Free Trade Agreement (among other possibilities) then A50 is clearly inadequate. The UK is the first nation to test the A50. Maybe we can offer consulting services to nations who will use it in the future ????

 

Again I agree, as the person who wrote art 50 has already said, it was never designed to be used, except maybe in the case of an EU country being taken over by a tyrannical dictatorship.

 

But what is not commonly realized is that, although article 50 is the only defined way to leave the EU, it is not the only way. There was nothing to stop us deciding what we wanted  from leaving first, then starting negotiations with the EU to achieve that aim in our own defined timeframe. 

 

Instead May decided to ride the populist tiger and invoke it to cheers from the leavers, without realizing it would almost inevitably lead to today's chaos.

 

I suspect, in years to come, that conference speech will be considered the defining moment at which leave either would invariably crash and burn  or lead to many years of the UK entering the economic wilderness. 

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Two year A50 period is really for damage limitation for the EU with just a possible framework for future relations. The obvious point being that, at the point any EU country triggerred A50, they wouldn't be stupid enough to do so without having a clear plan of where they wanted to be after those two years and having resources in place to carry out that plan.

 

No, you'd have to be really, really stupid to do something like that ....

[My Thai Life]

32 minutes ago, tebee said:

It's their internal assessment of what is happening/will happen

Have you watched the video, it's not an assessment of anything; it's 2 minutes of assertion mixed with inaccuracies.

 

For example: the video claims there have been no macroeconomic models - nonsense, there have been around 10 that I know of, including one by one of my former employers - a world leading international management consultancy.

 

There has also been at least one model that the UK government hasn't released as they believe it will affect the negotiations (it concerns the negative impact on the EU I believe).

 

Moreover, anyone who believes a macroeconomic model of this scale, with so many unknowns, all of which are dependent on future policies by parties unknown, can be accurate is living in cloud cuckoo land, or unfamiliar with macroeconomic modelling. Nevertheless, macroeconomic models have to be done, and they have been done.

 

By the way, I tried to follow the link, as I'd like to get some more detail on this, but your link doesn't link to the video.

Edited October 5, 2018 by My Thai Life

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

32 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Dear oh dear. Is it willful ignorance or just being totally uninformed ? I always wonder which. End of the day, it is the power to legislate that counts and always has been.

 

'In essence, the European Commission proposes and implements legislation and the European Council sets the strategic direction of the European Union. The other two important institutions are the Council of Ministers and European Parliament who adopt legislation. ... The European Commission is the executive body.'

 

The EU Parliament votes legislation into law, but it doesn't propose, design or implement this legislation. The Commission does as its the Exec. body. No citizenry elects any of the people within it. It's very firmly a clique.  (the Commission is the only body that can propose^[a] EU laws).  So where does the power lie? MEPs have admitted as much - they can only attempt to block ratification etc. They have no legislative power whatsoever and never have done.

 

'The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts.' The House of Lords instead scrutinises bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.^[9] It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons but is unable to prevent Bills passing into law.

 

'In the UK and Canada, the Commons holds much more legislative power than the respective upper house of parliament' and yes although the Prime Minister is the 'party-appointed' leader of the majority party within the Commons you have the choice to vote him/her in or out at a Gen. Election.

 

As EU law generally supersedes UK law and supposedly upward of 70% of legislation imposed within the UK is created in Brussels/Strasbourg, who is really in control here? Our own democratically elected politicians and hereditary peers or a commission in a foreign country who aren't answerable to any of the nation state's publics?

 

And are these two systems really comparable? No. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

So, no takers to debate me here?

 

Didn't think so.

 

????

[tebee]

6 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

So, no takers to debate me here?

 

Didn't think so.

 

????

The European Commision is more the equivalent of the British civil service - It has the technical expertise to draught the legislation in a legal manner. It both cases they draught legislation on the lines of what the elected ministers want, not off their own bat.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

18 minutes ago, tebee said:

The European Commision is more the equivalent of the British civil service - It has the technical expertise to draught the legislation in a legal manner. It both cases they draught legislation on the lines of what the elected ministers want, not off their own bat.

Nice try.

 

'The Commons' functions are to consider through debate new laws and changes to existing ones, authorise taxes, and provide scrutiny of the policy and expenditure of the Government. It has the power to give a Government a vote of no confidence.'

 

This is the exact opposite of the situation within the EU in terms of the commission (and to what you elude to above) whereby the people doing the proposing and designing of ALL legislation are non-elected and form a tight clique, Martin Selmayr's appointment to EU Commission Secretary General serves as a great example of this. An imposed vote of no-confidence is out of the question too - re: exec committees, of course.

 

The elected MPs within the commons, have historically proposed through debate and then voted on legislature themselves, with the HoL able to advise on or amend but not block any legislature proposed by democratically elected officials. In any case, in recent years this all seems a bit redundant, as EU law increasingly supersedes our own in Westminster, so one could say that in practice Brussels has become the new seat of our parliament.

 

The British legals system and our electoral system in particular have its flaws, but the dominant powers within the Western world didn't adopt and/or base their own legal system on the British one for no reason either. It being usurped is one of the central arguments behind our leaving the EUSSR.

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[tebee]

So if it's not the EU commission that writes  the legal framework of the laws, who is it that preforms that civil service type role in the EU?

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

They both cheated. 

 

2 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Firstly it's waaaaaay too early to make any judgement about the UK being driven anywhere, let alone of a cliff

Clearly Mercedes Benz don't agree with this........

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mercedes-benz-brexit-production-move-nissan-plant-sunderland-a8568331.html

 

If we suddenly have to start manufacturing for the UK in the UK, and for Europe in Europe, there will necessarily be an impact on UK production.” VC Vauxhall.

Edited October 5, 2018 by kwilco

[melvinmelvin]

22 minutes ago, tebee said:

So if it's not the EU commission that writes  the legal framework of the laws, who is it that preforms that civil service type role in the EU?

it is the commission doing that

the commission is also first line and day to day law enforcement

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

29 minutes ago, tebee said:

So if it's not the EU commission that writes  the legal framework of the laws, who is it that preforms that civil service type role in the EU?

 

6 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

it is the commission doing that

the commission is also first line and day to day law enforcement

 

Right, the Commission acts as sole legislator, as I stated a couple of times before.

 

Loosely speaking 'civil servants' propose and debate legislation in the UK, the BIG difference being within the Westminster Political System these are elected officials of both the majority and the opposition parties. A party leader who the majority party themselves elect acts as Prime Minister, but the party whom he represents can of course be voted in or out every GE and votes of no confidence can be imposed. Not the case with the EU and the EU commission a la Juncker et al. 

 

The EU and its super bureaucracy is simply less electorally democratic. This is a simple concept to grasp, how or why so many don't seem able to is beyond me. 

[tebee]

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

 

Loosely speaking 'civil servants' propose and debate legislation in the UK, the BIG difference being within the Westminster Political System these are elected officials of both the majority and the opposition parties.

Civil Servants aren't elected  !

[melvinmelvin]

the EU Parliament can throw the College, though

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by melvinmelvin

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

20 minutes ago, tebee said:

Civil Servants aren't elected  !

There is apparently no fixed legal definition of a 'civil servant', this is beside the point. I'm simply trying to state that the Commons and the Lords, effectively do the job that the EU Commission and Parliament do, the difference being the commission is comparable to the Commons (MPs) and the Lords comparable to the Parliament in terms of legislative power. Legislative supremacy lies in the hands of the Commons in Westminster parliamentary system. Legislative supremacy lies in the hands of the Commission within the EU. 

 

But, more pertinently -

 

'under the European Communities Act 1972 the decisions, directives and regulations of the EU are directly applicable with full legal force in the United Kingdom and are also supreme to all domestic legislation, in effect another source of UK legislation. The United Kingdom became a member when it joined what was originally known as the European Communities on 1 January 1973.' 

 

Upwards of 70% of imposed legislation too. Proposed by elected officials? Nah, not one bit of it.

 

Point made. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker