4 hours ago, nauseus said:

After the referendum, it seemed that most MP's (and cabinet ministers) had no clue as to the extent of the level of control that the EU had gained over a, supposedly sovereign UK. The Civil Service kept quiet and had evidently been happy with the status quo for years - the EU saved them a lot of work, so they only started crying after the leave vote - lazy overpaid bums.  

Nice fairy tale. They were quite aware of the functions fulfilled by the EU. As other member States, UK participated in the design of treaties, directives and regulations, and approved them. Nothing was hidden. The UK civil servants were not "lazy", it was not their duty to fulfil functions attributed to the EU, and there was no budget for it.

What the incompetent people governing UK did not take into account, after the Brexit vote and the agreement with the EU, was that the EU was not only a cost, and that they had to fund and carry out several activities previously done by the EU. As they had not anticipated and planed much manpower for it, UK has become an Eldorado for consulting firms.

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

The UK government should have walked away after 2 years, that's what Article 50 indicates. But of course Article 50 does not highlight all of the the difficulties for any member state trying to extract itself from a maze of conditions and obligations, which have accumulated, altered and amplified so much since joining the EEC in 1973. The succession of treaties and the introduction of the single market, Euro and the customs union resulted in a far more involved commitment than was envisaged and described to the UK public in 1972 and 1975, even though the Treaty of Rome indicated what was to come. Of course the UK could not leave without agreements for financial obligations and the people, at least.

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).

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

After the referendum, it seemed that most MP's (and cabinet ministers) had no clue as to the extent of the level of control that the EU had gained over a, supposedly sovereign UK.

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?

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

The Civil Service kept quiet and had evidently been happy with the status quo for years - the EU saved them a lot of work, so they only started crying after the leave vote - lazy overpaid bums.  

 

The only people who really knew (know?) what's going on are the Civil Service?

14 hours ago, candide said:

Nice fairy tale. They were quite aware of the functions fulfilled by the EU. As other member States, UK participated in the design of treaties, directives and regulations, and approved them. Nothing was hidden. The UK civil servants were not "lazy", it was not their duty to fulfil functions attributed to the EU, and there was no budget for it.

What the incompetent people governing UK did not take into account, after the Brexit vote and the agreement with the EU, was that the EU was not only a cost, and that they had to fund and carry out several activities previously done by the EU. As they had not anticipated and planed much manpower for it, UK has become an Eldorado for consulting firms.

Do you not recall how many UK MPs thought that we could leave the EU but still stay in the SM and CU, even after the vote, and on both sides? To give Cameron his due, he did spell this out but many chose to disbelieve him. 

 

Many MPs and MEPs rarely digested all of the rules and directives before passing them - too lengthy and often bundled together in huge batches in the EP for voting on according to a rapid timetable, which was about the only thing the EU ever did quickly. Not a chance of even having enough time to evaluate them nor fully understand them. All to easy to get through with QMV. Some people rightly call it railroading.

 

Magic dust back. 

39 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Do you not recall how many UK MPs thought that we could leave the EU but still stay in the SM and CU, even after the vote, and on both sides? To give Cameron his due, he did spell this out but many chose to disbelieve him. 

 

Many MPs and MEPs rarely digested all of the rules and directives before passing them - too lengthy and often bundled together in huge batches in the EP for voting on according to a rapid timetable, which was about the only thing the EU ever did quickly. Not a chance of even having enough time to evaluate them nor fully understand them. All to easy to get through with QMV. Some people rightly call it railroading.

 

Magic dust back. 

Still evading the question of how likely it was for the electorate to understand the full consequences of Brexit but the government not.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Do you not recall how many UK MPs thought that we could leave the EU but still stay in the SM and CU, even after the vote, and on both sides? To give Cameron his due, he did spell this out but many chose to disbelieve him. 

 

Many MPs and MEPs rarely digested all of the rules and directives before passing them - too lengthy and often bundled together in huge batches in the EP for voting on according to a rapid timetable, which was about the only thing the EU ever did quickly. Not a chance of even having enough time to evaluate them nor fully understand them. All to easy to get through with QMV. Some people rightly call it railroading.

 

Magic dust back. 

Not joining the single market (EFTA style), or the custom union (Turkey style) was a choice. The UK government could have chosen this option, but didn't for ideological reasons.

 

Some MPs may not have paid much attention, but the knowledge was there to be tapped. Members and staff of previous cabinets were quite knowledgeable, members of EU institutions and advisors couldn't know better, etc... 

 

On top of it, it seems you are not fully aware of the EU processes. Each major decision or directive is preceded by a consultation, to which national bodies, national lobbying groups, etc... participate. After a Directive (for example) is discussed and voted. It has to be implemented by a national law, which is the occasion for further debates, House commission report, etc... before the national law is ultimately voted in parliament. It's difficult to be uninformed under such conditions.

 

 

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Still evading the question of how likely it was for the electorate to understand the full consequences of Brexit but the government not.

Not evading...ignoring.

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Not evading...ignoring.

So the well-informed electorate was ignoring the consequences?

38 minutes ago, candide said:

Not joining the single market (EFTA style), or the custom union (Turkey style) was a choice. The UK government could have chosen this option, but didn't for ideological reasons.

 

Some MPs may not have paid much attention, but the knowledge was there to be tapped. Members and staff of previous cabinets were quite knowledgeable, members of EU institutions and advisors couldn't know better, etc... 

 

On top of it, it seems you are not fully aware of the EU processes. Each major decision or directive is preceded by a consultation, to which national bodies, national lobbying groups, etc... participate. After a Directive (for example) is discussed and voted. It has to be implemented by a national law, which is the occasion for further debates, House commission report, etc... before the national law is ultimately voted in parliament. It's difficult to be uninformed under such conditions.

 

 

Ideological reasons? Four pillars more like.

 

Is there a point to your puzzling second para?

 

Third para...most of the lobbying in the EU is done by big business and large corporations. Most of these "consultations" happen behind closed doors. Laws, directives and regulations are only proposed by the commission, which is accustomed the parliament to pass them easily, which generally happens. Once an EU law is passed it becomes law automatically in EU member states, due to EU law primacy - in theory the UK parliament has to pass the same law into national law UK law but it doesn't effectively make any difference - the backlog was such that the UK was way behind with this transposition process by the time of exit.

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So the well-informed electorate was ignoring the consequences?

I think that you know I was ignoring you. Bye.

48 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not evading...ignoring.

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

23 minutes ago, RayC said:

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

Yes, I don't care to answer every silly question thrown at me. 

48 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, I don't care to answer every silly question thrown at me. 

Think you confuse 'silly' with 'difficult'. 

Hopefully, in the next referendum, the UK electorate will make a more informed decision.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Ideological reasons? Four pillars more like.

 

Is there a point to your puzzling second para?

 

Third para...most of the lobbying in the EU is done by big business and large corporations. Most of these "consultations" happen behind closed doors. Laws, directives and regulations are only proposed by the commission, which is accustomed the parliament to pass them easily, which generally happens. Once an EU law is passed it becomes law automatically in EU member states, due to EU law primacy - in theory the UK parliament has to pass the same law into national law UK law but it doesn't effectively make any difference - the backlog was such that the UK was way behind with this transposition process by the time of exit.

Yes, four pillars. Nothing secret about it and it was the UK decision not to accept them. No unexpected surprise.

 

There is a point. The knowledge was available for anyone who cared to know.

 

There are usually also public consultations, various organisations publish white books, etc... About the part of consultations which were not public, the UK participated in it as other member States. Laws, directives and regulation are proposed by the commission, but after discussions and consultations, in particular with the Council (UK was a member if the Council). Laws and regulations apply directly, but Directives must be implemented by a national law (the Directive doesn't cover all aspects of implementation).

 

In brief, there was no way that UK politicians and their staff were not knowledgeable about the EU. It could be that, for example, some MPs have individually not been knowledgeable but the main institutions (I.e. the House, the Government, etc...) were globally quite aware of it

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Third para...most of the lobbying in the EU is done by big business and large corporations. Most of these "consultations" happen behind closed doors.

Is this any different to what happens in London or Washington?

 

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Laws, directives and regulations are only proposed by the commission, which is accustomed the parliament to pass them easily, which generally happens.

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)

 

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Once an EU law is passed it becomes law automatically in EU member states, due to EU law primacy - in theory the UK parliament has to pass the same law into national law UK law but it doesn't effectively make any difference - the backlog was such that the UK was way behind with this transposition process by the time of exit.

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?

4 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Think you confuse 'silly' with 'difficult'. 

Hopefully, in the next referendum, the UK electorate will make a more informed decision.

Next referendum lol - that would be both silly and difficult.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

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?

 

No but no the point / 10% wow / amendments invariably minor effect / EU fault - far too many of them.

3 hours ago, candide said:

Yes, four pillars. Nothing secret about it and it was the UK decision not to accept them. No unexpected surprise.

 

There is a point. The knowledge was available for anyone who cared to know.

 

There are usually also public consultations, various organisations publish white books, etc... About the part of consultations which were not public, the UK participated in it as other member States. Laws, directives and regulation are proposed by the commission, but after discussions and consultations, in particular with the Council (UK was a member if the Council). Laws and regulations apply directly, but Directives must be implemented by a national law (the Directive doesn't cover all aspects of implementation).

 

In brief, there was no way that UK politicians and their staff were not knowledgeable about the EU. It could be that, for example, some MPs have individually not been knowledgeable but the main institutions (I.e. the House, the Government, etc...) were globally quite aware of it

 

The House and Government are comprised of MPs or Lords, so why differentiate? I am saying that, from their words and proposals, many of them gave the impression they had only basic knowledge of the EU, particularly with respect to the hoped for "orderly withdrawal".

 

Goodnight.

 

  

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

No but no the point

What is the point then? You raised it!

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

 / 10% wow

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.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

/ amendments invariably minor effect

Any evidence to support that claim?

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

/ EU fault - far too many of them.

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.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

The House and Government are comprised of MPs or Lords, so why differentiate? I am saying that, from their words and proposals, many of them gave the impression they had only basic knowledge of the EU, particularly with respect to the hoped for "orderly withdrawal".

 

Goodnight.

 

  

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?

 

Tough times for the EU.

 

I wonder if they'll also have issues with Italy's democracy, now that a right wing party has been elected ?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63029909

 

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Tough times for the EU.

 

I wonder if they'll also have issues with Italy's democracy, now that a right wing party has been elected ?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63029909

 

Well if she's as corrupt as Orban and, like him,  enacts laws that make genuine democratic elections virtually impossible, and guts opposition media, then, yes, they will have issues with her.

8 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

 All the sins of the world? Bye.

 

11 hours ago, nauseus said:

Next referendum lol - that would be both silly and difficult.

Silly? No, unavoidable.

Difficult? Oh yes, very very difficult. The French and others are gonna make every step as painful as possible and they'll enjoy every minute of it.

But there will come a time in the near future where you'll realize that it's either rejoin or go bust so you'll just have to bend over and take your medicine.

Enjoy????

1 minute ago, Phoenix Rising said:

 

Silly? No, unavoidable.

Difficult? Oh yes, very very difficult. The French and others are gonna make every step as painful as possible and they'll enjoy every minute of it.

But there will come a time in the near future where you'll realize that it's either rejoin or go bust so you'll just have to bend over and take your medicine.

Enjoy????

The French? Difficult? Just like the 60's, except that now they have the mini-me Napoleon instead of de Gaulle. The others? Well that only leaves Germany really and they look to be running on empty. Let's see who really needs the suppository but you'd better practise touching your toes.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-economic-downturn-deepens-sept-outlook-grim-flash-pmi-2022-09-23/

 

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The French? Difficult? Just like the 60's, except that now they have the mini-me Napoleon instead of de Gaulle. The others? Well that only leaves Germany really and they look to be running on empty. Let's see who really needs the suppository but you'd better practise touching your toes.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-economic-downturn-deepens-sept-outlook-grim-flash-pmi-2022-09-23/

 

Comments like this continue reveal the arithmetical challenges facing Brexit supporters. The EU economy is about 5.5 times the size  of the UK's. (Quite a bit higher calculateded as PPP) Yet it's the Europeans that some reckon are going to suffer more because of Brexit. Bizarre.

35 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The French? Difficult? Just like the 60's, except that now they have the mini-me Napoleon instead of de Gaulle. The others? Well that only leaves Germany really and they look to be running on empty. Let's see who really needs the suppository but you'd better practise touching your toes.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-economic-downturn-deepens-sept-outlook-grim-flash-pmi-2022-09-23/

 

Yes, Britain's economic outlook sure looks rosy in comparison!????

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

 

"Our model predicts the UK to enter a recession as early as this year."

 

But hey, once those brilliant trade deals with Botswana, Nepal and.....uh, Guinea are signed things will turn around, I'm sure!

 

 

49 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 All the sins of the world? Bye.

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.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Comments like this continue reveal the arithmetical challenges facing Brexit supporters. The EU economy is about 5.5 times the size  of the UK's. (Quite a bit higher calculateded as PPP) Yet it's the Europeans that some reckon are going to suffer more because of Brexit. Bizarre.

27 countries 5.5x the size of just one - outstanding.

49 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Yes, Britain's economic outlook sure looks rosy in comparison!????

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

 

"Our model predicts the UK to enter a recession as early as this year."

 

But hey, once those brilliant trade deals with Botswana, Nepal and.....uh, Guinea are signed things will turn around, I'm sure!

 

 

No recession possible for the EU of course. ????

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/europe-heading-recession-cost-living-crisis-deepens-2022-09-05/

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No recession possible for the EU of course. ????

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/europe-heading-recession-cost-living-crisis-deepens-2022-09-05/

Quite, which will make your re-entry even more difficult and costly for you. But, of course, in the end everyone in the EU and the UK will benefit.