Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[tomacht8]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

Ok no problem, I give 4 references agreeing the primacy of EU Law and you tell me the EU website disagrees with them. I can live with that.

Given. Half knowledge from wikipedia brings nothing. Is not even allowed as a source in a student Bachelor Thesis.

 

In general, you are right, but that refers only to the regulation areas of the EU Law.

And even in this field there are many exceptions in practical jurisdiction.

For example, how can polish provincial politicians cut down one of the last natural forests to make their private pockets full? In practice, the EU law is quite often a toothless paper tiger.

 

But

How the UK handles its national budget is UK law alone! 

 

It is important to know the areas of application and details of EU law before you generally condemn it.

 

It's not all good, but EU law is by far more consumer and worker-friendly, rather than the jurisdiction of many national courts.

[welovesundaysatspace]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

I've just had a moment of clarity!

 

Several times today, I have heard senior Brexiters state that another referendum equates to remain!

 

What should we infer from that?

 

I'll tell you what I conclude; they KNOW there is no majority in favour of Brexit.

 

TILT, Game Over!

Of course they know. They won the referendum through lies and false promises, by telling everyone everything they wanted to hear. That was their only chance; had they told the people what we hear from them today, no one except the far-right and some hardcore haters would have voted to leave. Their strategy worked; the problem is, at some point the house of cards will tumble. 

 

As a refresher, from the CNN today: 

Infamous Brexit promises haunt politicians as Britain faces crunch week

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/09/uk/brexit-promises-gbr-intl/index.html?no-st=1552238368

 

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It’s not “undemocratic” when a country decides it wants to join a club and live by the club rules. It’s not “undemocratic” when my golf club forces me to wear certain clothes either. We can always leave the club. 

 

The direct translation is indeed “Bürokrat”, but there neither is a function in the German system called a Bürokrat, nor does it, in the pragmatics of the German language, make a good translation, because it carries a negative connotation, often used to describe someone who is overly bureaucratic or lacking efficiency and pragmatism. 

• Advanced Members
•  1,914
• 1,427 posts

• Report post
•  
•  
•  
•  #4445

Posted just now

  2 hours ago, aright said:

Another difference is "The Supremacy of EU laws" which defines the relationship between EU law and National law. It says that EU law prevails if it conflicts with national law. 

It’s not “undemocratic” when a country decides it wants to leave a club either.

[welovesundaysatspace]

Just now, nauseus said:

• It’s not “undemocratic” when a country decides it wants to leave a club either.

And I never said it is. 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Of course they know. They won the referendum through lies and false promises, by telling everyone everything they wanted to hear. That was their only chance; had they told the people what we hear from them today, no one except the far-right and some hardcore haters would have voted to leave. Their strategy worked; the problem is, at some point the house of cards will tumble. 

 

As a refresher, from the CNN today: 

Infamous Brexit promises haunt politicians as Britain faces crunch week

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/09/uk/brexit-promises-gbr-intl/index.html?no-st=1552238368

 

You really think Boris won the referendum single-handedly don't you?

[tebee]

"I hear Germany has put aside an international aid budget to support the UK in the event of a no deal."

[tomacht8]

4 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It’s not “undemocratic” when a country decides it wants to join a club and live by the club rules. It’s not “undemocratic” when my golf club forces me to wear certain clothes either. We can always leave the club. 

 

The direct translation is indeed “Bürokrat”, but there neither is a function in the German system called a Bürokrat, nor does it, in the pragmatics of the German language, make a good translation, because it carries a negative connotation, often used to describe someone who is overly bureaucratic or lacking efficiency and pragmatism. 

The right word is Beamter. Beamte are employed for life. Beamte must take an oath of loyalty to the state, on the contrary to state employees (Angestellte).

Bürokraten, right?  do service according to regulations, without any flexibility

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

have heard senior Brexiters state that another re

 

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

I'm sorry, I do not have so much time to explain that in all its details for you.

 

1. EU law regulates the interests and the functioning of the EU. The legal bases were also signed by the UK. I think that is easy to understand.

 

2. The EU laws do not regulate national law. If the UK wants to imprison a murderer for 20 years, the UK can do it.

If the UK wants to carry out the death penalty, that violates the EU Carta on Human Rights. There we have a problem.

Because the UK previously voted against the death penalty in the Carta.

 

3. The regulatory area of EU law is limited to clearly defined legal areas.

 

4. Nationalstandards contrary to EU law therefore remain valid and may continue to be applied to purely domestic situations. So if the UK government only pays pennies to their pensioners, or how the GDP is distributed within the UK, is alone UK Law.

Only when the limits of the jointly agreed debt ceiling are exceeded, the EU will begin to whine. And the UK has once again violated the 60% limit. 

That's just one of the reasons why some

responsible politicans in the UK prefer to dive down instead to get their noses dipped in shit. Since a Brexit is very convenient then for them.

 

5. Lastly, e.g. the UK can be glad that the European Court of Justice allowed the unilateral repeal of Article 50.

Point 5 - an unusually rapid decision and amazingly coincidental timing from the ECJ - one day before the "meaningful vote" was supposed to have happened. Fantastic!

[aright]

7 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It’s not “undemocratic” when a country decides it wants to join a club and live by the club rules. It’s not “undemocratic” when my golf club forces me to wear certain clothes either. We can always leave the club. 

 

The direct translation is indeed “Bürokrat”, but there neither is a function in the German system called a Bürokrat, nor does it, in the pragmatics of the German language, make a good translation, because it carries a negative connotation, often used to describe someone who is overly bureaucratic or lacking efficiency and pragmatism. 

As I recall the club I joined was the Common Market and it morphed into something less democratic without asking my permission...…...now that is undemocratic and you are right you can always leave the club or accept without question new imposed rules.

 

Presumably Germans must have German titles for members of the European Commission if they don't like Burocrat. I would have thought the Germans put great store in titles. Do you know what the title is?

 

When can I expect your thesis on how you think the May elections will turn out?

[tomacht8]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Point 5 - an unusually rapid decision and amazingly coincidental timing from the ECJ - one day before the "meaningful vote" was supposed to have happened. Fantastic!

It's good for the UK.

Gives the UK much more room to maneuver. 

That's a candy.

An option that the UK can use unilaterally,

but not forced to use.

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

As I recall the club I joined was the Common Market and it morphed into something less democratic without asking my permission...…...now that is undemocratic

It is as “undemocratic” as no one asked you for permission for the last tax increase or what your taxes are being used for. 

 

Neither did the common market morph “into something less democratic”. 

 

4 minutes ago, aright said:

presumably Germans must have German titles for members of the European Commission if they don't like Burocrat. I would have thought the Germans put great store in titles. Do you know what the title is?

Not sure why you’re so obsessed about the Germans, but if I’m not mistaken they call them Kommissare. 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You really think Boris won the referendum single-handedly don't you?

As much as you think that David Cameron single-handedly changed the constitution to turn a non-binding opinion poll into a binding referendum. 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, aright said:

Take more water with it then you won't suffer from brain burn and immature comments. I explained the difference to you in Post 4111

 

"The Civil Service helps the government of the day develop and implement its policies and legislation as effectively as possible."

"Our difference is caused by the fact British Civil Servants don't need to be elected they are gophers whereas imo people like the European Commission who propose legislation, implement policies and the EU Budget  should be."

 

Head of the Civil Service

The Head of the Civil Service leads nearly half a million public servants who work in public institutions, administer tax, benefits and pensions systems and put government policy into practice. The civil service is a permanent, politically impartial workforce that serves the government of the day, while retaining the flexibility to serve future governments.

Currently civil servants are supporting the government’s economic and public service reform. The scale of the challenges and persistent weaknesses require a reform plan that applies right across the civil service. The Head of the Civil Service is one of several senior civil servants accountable for the reform of the civil service through the Civil Service Board.

 

Where does it say the Head of the Civil Service proposes legislation?

 

If you believe the UK civil service never propose legislation to the UK government then you are naïve beyond belief.

 

But whoever proposes the legislation, it only becomes law in the UK if Parliament approves it; either via a stator instrument or an actual act.

 

in  the EU; the Commission may propose, but IT DOES NOT LEGISLATE!

 

Legislation in the EU can only be passed either by the elected MEPs in the European Parliament or the elected heads of government or ministers of the member states in the Council.

 

6 hours ago, aright said:

What's your take on Selmayr's appointment? Democratic?

It's an appointment, the question of whether or not it's democratic doesn't enter into it; the same as the appointment of any public servant. 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Loiner said:

He and his generation would be turning in their graves at your argument now.

 

You obviously don't believe in allowing people to make an informed democratic decision; but don't insult my father and his generation by thinking that they would share your undemocratic views.

 

Let alone share your stated support for a neo fascist.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, aright said:

They have been successful in highlighting the lack of democracy and transparency in the EU. It's an expression of dissatisfaction.

The populist parties have gained lots of votes at this stage but haven't gained enough to win power.

You will have to be patient and wait for it to happen because imo if the EU does not change it's direction of travel it surely will. Watch for the May elections.

What's your take on those elections? Where do you think the votes will fall?

 First you try to convince us all that the EU is and always will be undemocratic: now you are saying that the coming elections will be the beginning of massive democratic change within the EU!

 

Where will the votes fall? No idea, I haven't given it much thought as it is unlikely we will be taking part.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

I've already said that I feel there were lies in 2016 but from both sides. What has the SMA got to do with this? 

 I don't know; what has  got to do with this?

 

The Single European Act has a lot to do with this. Educate yourself; look it up.

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

It's good for the UK.

Gives the UK much more room to maneuver. 

That's a candy.

An option that the UK can use unilaterally,

but not forced to use.

 

Yeah. It's a candy alright.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I don't know; what has  got to do with this?

 

The Single European Act has a lot to do with this. Educate yourself; look it up.

 

So smart. We were talking about campaign lies, not the Single European Act.

[7by7]

Just now, nauseus said:

So smart. We were talking about campaign lies, not the Single European Act.

We were also talking about the EEC becoming the EU; which the Single European Act laid the foundations to the UK, under Major, signing the Maastricht Treaty which effectively established the EU.

 

If you are going to use history in your arguments, it would behove you to actually do some research first!

 

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, aright said:

Ok no problem, I give 4 references agreeing the primacy of EU Law and you tell me the EU website disagrees with them. I can live with that.

 You give four references showing the primacy of EU law in EU matters; and the EU website says the same.

 

But you are trying to convince people that this primacy applies to all other aspects of law in a member state; which is simply not true.

 

A classic example is immigration. All member states have to abide by the Freedom of Movement Directive when dealing with immigration by EEA and Swiss nationals and, if relevant, their qualifying non EEA or swiss national family members. However, when it comes to immigration by all others, each member state sets it's own rules and laws completely without reference to or influence from the EU.

 

I cannot decide if you you simply don't understand the difference between national law and EU law, or if you are hoping others are gullible enough to swallow your falsehoods without question.

[aright]

44 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It is as “undemocratic” as no one asked you for permission for the last tax increase or what your taxes are being used for. 

 

Neither did the common market morph “into something less democratic”. 

 

Not sure why you’re so obsessed about the Germans, but if I’m not mistaken they call them Kommissare. 

 

I voted in an election fully aware that if my party got into power, taxes might go up , go down or stay the same and many other things might happen which I did not like....…..that's life and it has always been so.....and if I didn't like it I could democratically vote them out at the next election.

Can you advise me what political party I can vote for to get rid of Selmayr and effect change in the EU? My vote in the UK allows me to not only vote in people I like but also to get rid of people I don't like. Is there an equivalent for me personally in the EU? For the record how many years has Nigel Farage been trying to change things....with what degree of success? The Westminster system of government addresses the issue of failing policies because it kicks the party out, watch the next GE. The EU's democratic deficit means it doesn't want to or is unable to correct failing policies such as the dysfunctional euro and the inadequate handling of the eurozone debt crisis since 2009 which has exacerbated the gap between North and South which is why Brexit was the right choice for me. The EU is stuck halfway between a functioning state and an international organization. It can't go forward and won't go back. It's a mess.

 

 

The common market was a trading group which morphed into an undemocratic, flawed, economic, political and legislative structure with empire building ambitions riding roughshod over any resistance or attempt to secede.  

 

I thought Kommisare was a Police Inspector...….pretty close I suppose.

 

Are you going to give me your take on the May elections or not? Is there some information I can help you with?

 

 

 

 

[aright]

52 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

If you believe the UK civil service never propose legislation to the UK government then you are naïve beyond belief.

 

But whoever proposes the legislation, it only becomes law in the UK if Parliament approves it; either via a stator instrument or an actual act.

 

in  the EU; the Commission may propose, but IT DOES NOT LEGISLATE!

 

Legislation in the EU can only be passed either by the elected MEPs in the European Parliament or the elected heads of government or ministers of the member states in the Council.

 

It's an appointment, the question of whether or not it's democratic doesn't enter into it; the same as the appointment of any public servant. 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you tell me what piece of legislation the Civil Service proposed?

 

Where Selmayer's appointment was concerned I see democracy is not high on your list of wants. His appointment certainly upset the Ombudsman but I'm sure that's no concern of yours.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/martin-selmayr-european-commission-appointment-vs-the-press/

 

[aright]

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You give four references showing the primacy of EU law in EU matters; and the EU website says the same.

 

But you are trying to convince people that this primacy applies to all other aspects of law in a member state; which is simply not true.

 

A classic example is immigration. All member states have to abide by the Freedom of Movement Directive when dealing with immigration by EEA and Swiss nationals and, if relevant, their qualifying non EEA or swiss national family members. However, when it comes to immigration by all others, each member state sets it's own rules and laws completely without reference to or influence from the EU.

 

I cannot decide if you you simply don't understand the difference between national law and EU law, or if you are hoping others are gullible enough to swallow your falsehoods without question.

Can you point me to the sentence or paragraph where I said that.

[aright]

48 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You give four references showing the primacy of EU law in EU matters; and the EU website says the same.

 

But you are trying to convince people that this primacy applies to all other aspects of law in a member state; which is simply not true.

 

A classic example is immigration. All member states have to abide by the Freedom of Movement Directive when dealing with immigration by EEA and Swiss nationals and, if relevant, their qualifying non EEA or swiss national family members. However, when it comes to immigration by all others, each member state sets it's own rules and laws completely without reference to or influence from the EU.

 

I cannot decide if you you simply don't understand the difference between national law and EU law, or if you are hoping others are gullible enough to swallow your falsehoods without question.

We were discussing the primacy of EU laws.

Directives are not laws so Primacy does not apply.

As far as I am aware there is no EU immigration Law. If that's the case how does Primacy Law apply?

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, aright said:

Can you tell me what piece of legislation the Civil Service proposed?

Most of it; but unlike the EU Commissio9n it's not done transparently.

 

Even if they don't proposed, the relevant Minister tells their permanent Secretary what they want, and the Permanent Secretary comes back with proposals of how to implement it. The ill conceived, illogical and unfair 2016 financial requirement for family migration being an example which I am very familiar with.

 

28 minutes ago, aright said:

Where Selmayer's appointment was concerned I see democracy is not high on your list of wants. His appointment certainly upset the Ombudsman but I'm sure that's no concern of yours.

As I said; politicians make all the final decisions in the EU; and they are elected. 

[7by7]

29 minutes ago, aright said:

Can you point me to the sentence or paragraph where I said that. 

Every single post where you have tried to convince people that EU law has primacy in every single area.

 

7 minutes ago, aright said:

We were discussing the primacy of EU laws.

Directives are not laws so Primacy does not apply.

As far as I am aware there is no EU immigration Law. If that's the case how does Primacy Law apply?

The FoM directive, like all EU directives, lays out what the law is, and how it is implemented.

 

The legal basis being Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Titles IV and V TFEU; Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Edited March 10, 2019 by 7by7

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

As much as you think that David Cameron single-handedly changed the constitution to turn a non-binding opinion poll into a binding referendum. 

I don't understand why so many remainers persist with this 'non-binding referendum' nonsense. Whether or not referendums are non-binding from a legal standpoint, everybody knew this one was to be binding. From when Cameron first announced it, and all the way through the campaign, nobody made the slightest suggestion it was advisory only.

In fact we were categorically told by the remain campaign all the nasty things that will happen if we voted to leave. Why would they do that if it was just a poll?

 

When people went to the ballot boxes in 2016 they did it because it was an actual vote to either leave the EU or stay in it. Do you honestly believe those voters thought it was just an opinion poll? 

If Parliament viewed the referendum as an opinion poll, why did they vote something like 4 to 1 in favour of triggering article 50? 

 

This 'non-binding' argument only surfaced when Leave won the vote. It just sounds petulant to me. 

 

 

 

[aright]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Most of it; but unlike the EU Commissio9n it's not done transparently.

 

Even if they don't proposed, the relevant Minister tells their permanent Secretary what they want, and the Permanent Secretary comes back with proposals of how to implement it. The ill conceived, illogical and unfair 2016 financial requirement for family migration being an example which I am very familiar with.

 

As I said; politicians make all the final decisions in the EU; and they are elected. 

What a dreamer. Accusation without evidence.

If they are elected tell me what party or individual I can vote for to get rid of Selmayr If you want to name me any British MP I can tell you the best party/ies to vote for  to get rid of them. 

[aright]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Every single post where you have tried to convince people that EU law has primacy in every single area.

 

The FoM directive, like all EU directives, lays out what the law is, and how it is implemented.

 

The legal basis being Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Titles IV and V TFEU; Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Sentence and/or paragraph otherwise its wishful thinking and has no basis in fact.

 

According to Europa, the official European Union website, a "directive is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve."  goals are not laws.....Primacy applies to laws.

 

Your last paragraph is pure obfuscation and a form of trolling.

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

What a dreamer. Accusation without evidence.

I gave you an example from an area with which I am very familiar. That you choose to ignore that and instead make such a ridiculous statement says it all about you.

 

9 minutes ago, aright said:

If they are elected tell me what party or individual I can vote for to get rid of Selmayr If you want to name me any British MP I can tell you the best party/ies to vote for  to get rid of them. 

 

IF THEY ARE ELECTRED?

 

I AM NOT SAYING, AND NEVER HAVE SAID, THAT ANY BUREAUCRAT IS ELECTED, IT IS YOU WHO CONTINUES WITH THAT FANTASY!

 

BUREAUCRATS ARE APPOINTED, IT IS THEIR POLITICAL MASTERS WHO ARE ELECTED!

 

TELL ME, WHO CAN YOU VOTE FOR TO GET RID OF SIR MARK SEDWILL?