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

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

 

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.

Hardly conclusive and certainly not 'driving the UK off a cliff' either. 

 

A similar story regarding BMW was debunked a few pages back already. Let's wait and watch what happens for a good while after 29th March before jumping to any conclusions in order to sure up faltering arguments. The same was done by Remain in 2016 with next to none of the doomsday prophecies coming to fruition, after all. Same thing with joining the Eurozone in 1999. Totally discrediting the same group of people and their friends' 'expert opinions'.

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[aright]

6 hours ago, tebee said:

Yes - Spain could block it if we don't make concessions on Gibraltar for instance.  

More "Project Fear"

 

Yes and we could cancel our FDI in Spain 21% of all Spains foreign investment (3rd largest) Euro1.7 billion and potential loss of 16 million tourists a year and untold amounts of fruit and vegetables, difficulties for the 400 Spanish companies registered in the UK and difficulties for the 100000 Spaniards who come each year to learn English and the 9000 students who come here every year to attend out universities.

 

 

 

 

[aright]

6 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 

 

 

That's naïve. Why would you close negotiations a year before you have to when there are potentially additional thing you might want to go for. Note Tusk approached us with the deal yesterday not the other way round.

[nauseus]

3 hours 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.

And by virtue of the Referendum Act 2015, their final decision was to pass the EU decision to the country. 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

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.

What has Mercedes Benz got to do with the Greeks? Is this yet another fine example of critical thinking?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

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. 

 

A 21 month transition period was agreed separately; it is not any formal part of A50. 

[sandyf]

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you can explain how legislation can be implemented without being voted into law.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

A 21 month transition period was agreed separately; it is not any formal part of A50. 

Yes. The idea for transit period was to give UK time to get on it's feet. 

[Guest]

Brexit means lose-lose, says Donald Tusk

Wise words by EU leader. Note that there is no need to yell, when giving a speech or participating in discussions. 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Guest

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Maybe you can explain how legislation can be implemented without being voted into law.

It cannot be, it requires ratification, but bills / legislature can be and IS rewritten so that it gets the required number of votes. Without having to go into detail it should be abundantly clear that this is a system that is VERY open to interpretation and lobbying within Parliament.

 

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly. 

 

Once something becomes a European law, it is the European Commission themselves who have the sole right to repeal or change that legislation, not the Parliament. Sounds awfully democratic to me ????.

 

Moreover -

 

“I don’t think that the European public or commentators understand what the European Commission really is. The Commission is the executive, it is the de facto Government of Europe and it has the sole right to propose legislation. It does so in consultation with 3,000 secret committees staffed mainly by big business and big capital and all the legislation is proposed in secret.”
 

So, as the people who legislate are the executive body of the whole bureaucracy and thus aren't open to scrutiny in the proposal of this legislation, and ALTHOUGH they have to push it through Parliament to be ratified, they themselves are the sole body who have the power to repeal or change existing legislation. These people are undoubtedly a clique who are unelected and are unaccountable to the public. Again, sounds awful democratic to me. ???? 

 

Good job we'll be returning to Parliamentary politics as of 2019. That could be improved too of course, but at least we have the power to do that within our own parliament.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'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.

 

Same old story, vote them out.

GE's are held every 5 years and there is no guarantee that any politician can be replaced, EU commissioners are replaced every 5 years. It is perfectly acceptable for useless UK politicians to do an indeterminate time in office but unacceptable for the commissioner to do 5 years.

You also continually ignore the fact that the EU commissioner is chosen by the person you claim to have voted into office. Time to face reality and leave that paranoia behind.

[melvinmelvin]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Maybe you can explain how legislation can be implemented without being voted into law.

 

there are always exceptions (eg like my radiocommunication gear and marking regime),

 

there used to be (I do not know if it still exists) a legislative area where the commission rather than the parliament

has the upper hand

I have forgotten the article number (97?) such directives addressing state monopolies

follow the normal pattern as  a starters

if parliament says no and sends it back then commission maybe fix a bit here and there and submit again,

parliament says no

commission says foooook you, we make it law tomorrow - then publish in the Journal

 

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

It cannot be, it requires ratification, but bills / legislature can and IS rewritten so that it gets the required number of votes. Without having to go into detail it should be abundantly clear that this is a system that is VERY open to interpretation and lobbying within Parliament.

 

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly. 

 

Once something becomes a European law, it is the European Commission themselves who have the sole right to repeal or change that legislation, not the Parliament. Sounds awfully democratic to me ????.

 

Moreover -

 

“I don’t think that the European public or commentators understand what the European Commission really is. The Commission is the executive, it is the de facto Government of Europe and it has the sole right to propose legislation. It does so in consultation with 3,000 secret committees staffed mainly by big business and big capital and all the legislation is proposed in secret.”
 

So, as the people who legislate are the executive body of the whole bureaucracy and thus aren't open to scrutiny in the proposal of this legislation, and ALTHOUGH they have to push it through Parliament to be ratified, they themselves are the sole body who have the power to repeal or change existing legislation. These people are undoubtedly a clique who are unelected and are unaccountable to the public. Again, sounds awful democratic to me. ???? 

 

Good job we'll be returning to Parliamentary politics as of 2019. That needs to be tweaked to of course, but at least we have the power to do that within our own parliament.

 

 

"It cannot be, it requires ratification,"  -  exactly, parliament makes the final decision, never mind the buts.

 

"Good job we'll be returning to Parliamentary politics as of 2019."  - Only time will tell if it is a "good job" or not and that will always be a matter of opinion.

[melvinmelvin]

 

re commission not being accountable as such,

however, the Parliament has the power to throw the College

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

28 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Same old story, vote them out.

GE's are held every 5 years and there is no guarantee that any politician can be replaced, EU commissioners are replaced every 5 years. It is perfectly acceptable for useless UK politicians to do an indeterminate time in office but unacceptable for the commissioner to do 5 years.

You also continually ignore the fact that the EU commissioner is chosen by the person you claim to have voted into office. Time to face reality and leave that paranoia behind.

Hahahaha! Paranoia eh? That's a good one. It sounds to me like you swallowed the blue pill many years ago, did J.C. Juncker hand it to you by any chance?

 

I actually agree that there should be British prime-ministerial term limits. I have never once said that the WP system is perfect or beyond reproach. It can be tweaked and improved for sure. FTPT electoral system among other aspects need some careful revision. But... we as an electorate control who is voted in to assess these things as well as create / change and repeal legislation. You might not get the desired outcome, i.e.: political party/candidate of your choice at every GE, but you have a chance of changing the status quo.

 

With the President of the Commission and his subordinates in the commission the PUBLIC of each member state have no say whatsoever in their appointment and were never offered one. It's simply impossible. That is fundamentally undemocratic, if you disagree then I'd like to know your reasoning.

 

The fact that our respective democratically elected leaders get to vote for the make up of the supreme legislative group in the whole sh**show isn't any consolation either, it's again totally undemocratic and doesn't happen within the old WP system as they (historically at least) did not answer to an executive body like they do now in the EU. This is, once again, something that neither we (nor any other member state's public) were ever asked about either. Of course we weren't, that's not how the EU operates.

 

- Once something becomes a European law, it is the European Commission themselves who have the sole right to repeal or change that legislation, not the Parliament. -

 

I reiterate, this sounds awfully democratic, doesn't it!?

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

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.

I gather you're not from the UK as you appear to speak from the EU Commission's point of view.

 

I was more interested to know if UK citizens (remainers or leavers) would be happy with those terms, because it feels like nobody supports Chequers. I realise the EU won't accept them.

 

 

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

15 minutes ago, sandyf said:

"It cannot be, it requires ratification,"  -  exactly, parliament makes the final decision, never mind the buts.

 

"Good job we'll be returning to Parliamentary politics as of 2019."  - Only time will tell if it is a "good job" or not and that will always be a matter of opinion.

 

We shall see. But there is little point crying about it now. Brexit won the day, the people have spoken. Let us now get on with it. 

 

3 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

- Once something becomes a European law, it is the European Commission themselves who have the sole right to repeal or change that legislation, not the Parliament. -

 

 

Keep your head buried in the sandyF then mate ???? . Must be more comfortable than facing reality?

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[sandyf]

4 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

With the Commissioner and his subordinates in the commission the PUBLIC of each member state have no say whatsoever in their appointment and were never offered one. It's simply impossible. That is fundamentally undemocratic, if you disagree then I'd like to know your reasoning.

 

So you say your paranoia over the EU commission is based on the fact that the UK PM does not ask you who he should choose to send to the EU, I can see that putting your nose out of joint.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

So you say your paranoia over the EU commission is based on the fact that the UK PM does not ask you who he should choose to send to the EU, I can see that putting your nose out of joint.

How do you arrive at that strange conclusion?

 

My bone of contention is that ANY democratically elected leader of any country should have to elect a superior within a corrupt 'commission' or any other exec. body.

 

You might enjoy the EUSSR and its anti-democratic make up and hierarchy, but those of us who value democracy and sovereignty simply do not. 

 

Still, this is all moot now. We'll be off soon. ???? ????

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[sandyf]

10 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I gather you're not from the UK as you appear to speak from the EU Commission's point of view.

 

I was more interested to know if UK citizens (remainers or leavers) would be happy with those terms, because it feels like nobody supports Chequers. I realise the EU won't accept them.

 

I am from the UK but I look for reasoned argument and TM's demands are far from reasonable.

I do not agree with referendums in the first place, even criminals are allowed "beyond reasonable doubt", but I did vote to remain.

Strikes me that things have gone too far to go back so it is now a question of damage limitation and we won't get that from Chequers.

[tebee]

15 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I gather you're not from the UK as you appear to speak from the EU Commission's point of view.

 

I was more interested to know if UK citizens (remainers or leavers) would be happy with those terms, because it feels like nobody supports Chequers. I realise the EU won't accept them.

 

 

 

 

To me Chequers seems crazy - we are supporting manufacturing jobs while throwing service ones into the wind.

 

This make no sense economically  as we run a deficit on physical goods, while maintaining a healthy surplus on intangibles.

 

So we help the EU increase it's  imports while damaging the things we are good at exporting. 

 

Manufacturing still takes a hit 'cos we are outside the CU with consequential checks, cost and delays at borders.  

[melvinmelvin]

its entirely up to each member state to decide if the public should have a say in picking/vetting the commissioner

 

[CG1 Blue]

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

To me Chequers seems crazy - we are supporting manufacturing jobs while throwing service ones into the wind.

 

This make no sense economically  as we run a deficit on physical goods, while maintaining a healthy surplus on intangibles.

 

So we help the EU increase it's  imports while damaging the things we are good at exporting. 

 

Manufacturing still takes a hit 'cos we are outside the CU with consequential checks, cost and delays at borders.  

Doesn't it mean we'd not have to follow EU rules on services, and therefore we'd have a free hand to make services in the UK more competitive? I haven't read the full text.

I can't imagine even Theresa the Appeaser sacrificing something like 80% of GDP to get a deal.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

13 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

its entirely up to each member state to decide if the public should have a say in picking/vetting the commissioner

 

The biggest problem is the vast majority have no idea 

 

1) Who he/she is

2) The extent of the Commission or President of the Commission's power especially with regard to legislating and the effects that has on their own every day lives

3) No member state has ever offered this so called 'say in picking' the Pres. of the Commission or any other member of it.

 

The Commission is a tight little clique, the events surrounding Mr. Selmayr's appointment as Sec. General and the fact that the commission is - 'the sole proposer of legislation, it does so in consultation with 3,000 secret committees staffed mainly by big business and big capital and all the legislation is proposed in secret' says it all.

 

If enough people within the electorate of each member state understood all this better we'd see the hastening of the collapse of the EU. As more and more people feel the effects of the multiple waves of devastating economic, fiscal and social policies of the EEA/EU, the more they are waking up to the reality. It won't be around long, I'd bet money on it.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[tebee]

Brexiters misunderstand the European project
It is legitimate to believe the EU has over-reached, but not to despise its goals

 

https://www.ft.com/content/0c870040-c7bb-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9

[tebee]

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Doesn't it mean we'd not have to follow EU rules on services, and therefore we'd have a free hand to make services in the UK more competitive? I haven't read the full text.

I can't imagine even Theresa the Appeaser sacrificing something like 80% of GDP to get a deal.

Yes services escape EU rules, conversely that means they can't work and trade over there -  The EU won't let the public use say insurance services that can't guarantee they the same level of protection as ones in the EU.

 

So our services have a free hand to become more competitive in the UK !

[sandyf]

29 minutes ago, tebee said:

To me Chequers seems crazy - we are supporting manufacturing jobs while throwing service ones into the wind.

 

This make no sense economically  as we run a deficit on physical goods, while maintaining a healthy surplus on intangibles.

 

So we help the EU increase it's  imports while damaging the things we are good at exporting. 

 

Manufacturing still takes a hit 'cos we are outside the CU with consequential checks, cost and delays at borders.  

For many, this could be their worst Christmas ever.

 

“If barriers to trade with the EU increase, particularly the sort of ‘non-tariff’ barriers created by customs checks and regulatory divergence, then some sectors of the economy will be affected more than others,” said Agnes Norris Keiller of the IFS 

“Parts of the manufacturing sector are likely to be hardest hit. As a result, the jobs or wages of men with low formal qualifications working in certain manual occupations may be under particular threat. These are the sorts of workers who are most likely to find it hard to adapt and to find new roles that are equally well paid elsewhere.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/male-manual-workers-brexit-institute-for-fiscal-studies-wages-left-behind-a8568901.html

[melvinmelvin]

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

Yes services escape EU rules, conversely that means they can't work and trade over there -  The EU won't let the public use say insurance services that can't guarantee they the same level of protection as ones in the EU.

 

So our services have a free hand to become more competitive in the UK !

 

same level or better, me thinks

 

[CG1 Blue]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

Yes services escape EU rules, conversely that means they can't work and trade over there -  The EU won't let the public use say insurance services that can't guarantee they the same level of protection as ones in the EU.

 

So our services have a free hand to become more competitive in the UK !

Brokers/underwriters in Lloyds of London for example are global providers though, so I assume they could potentially take even more of the non-EU business.

In the finance world of hedge funds etc., most of those are registered in London, NY or HK. That sector will remain largely unaffected.

But I agree there will be challenges for UK companies selling services to EU based clients.

[CG1 Blue]

Another project fear story bites the dust...

 

Unilever scraps Dutch relocation plan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45756738