May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[rockingrobin]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So when can I get my democratic vote on the EU council and more important the commission?

 

I can vote in the general election and vote MPs in or out but the EU commission I can't and yes they are a self serving arrogant boys club.

Then the real question is who in the UK votes for Downing St Chief of Staff

[jpinx]

All this talk about the EU being able to reform itself if UK stays in and pushes for reform is so much hogwash.  The EU has had ample time to start "reforming" but the reality is that it becomes more and more top-heavy and hard-nosed as the years go by.  If the EU was going to reform, what inspired Junkers to be so arrogant as to say that EU wants to "hurt" UK for leaving, instead of gracefully accepting the will of the UK electorate and making the divorce as amicable as possible -- after all, the EU will still be only 30 miles away!   Tusk was no better with his commentary and both have shown the real face of the hard-nosed eurocrats,  At least we got rid of Schultz and Rogers, but there's so many more to be weeded out before the EU could become anything like a "comfortable" Union.

[jpinx]

19 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

You are making a common mistake, one which, I believe, caused many people to make the wrong decision last June. The EU is not undemocratic.

 

The EU is governed, it's laws and rules made by:

• the European council, which is made up of each member state's head of government; for the UK that's the Prime Minister,
• the council of ministers; which is made up of ministers from each member state's elected government, and/or
• the European parliament, which is made up of directly elected members from each member state.

The commission, the arrogant bully boys you call them, is akin to the British civil service; it drafts and advises, but does not make decisions.

 

How the EU works: who runs the EU?

 

It is not the commission with whom the UK government will have to agree a deal with; it is the council; i.e. the heads of government of the remaining 27.

This is the technical description of the EU, the reality is vastly different, as anyone who knows people on the "inside" will tell you (if they dare).  The "civil servants" are in control and manipulate all the decisions to further their own agenda.  With the multitude of languages, translators are in very powerful positions and can alter the emphasis or even the concept of legislation just by using a different, but correct wording.  Look at the fun we all have with the translated immigration laws in Thailand.   

Edited January 8, 2017 by jpinx

[jpinx]

26 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

This would be one of the 'democratic' guys who prefers Royal Prerogative to parliamentary democracy.

Nothing wrong with a presidential order in the biggest democracy in the world - is there?

[jpinx]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Translated into plain English: Both Fox and Davis refused to come around to Rogers' pro-remain viewpoint.

 

Rogers is now completely discredited. He has left the civil service. Expect him to pop up on the board of some globalist enterprise-or-other in the near-to-middle future.

Rogers is known to be a uk-eurocrat "gone-native" and working to increase the power of the EU over some years.  He was part of the team Camoron used to try to negotiate for reductions in incomers to UK, but needless to say, Rogers failed -- because he didn't want to succeed.  Time to "out" as many of these UK-eurocrats as possible, also the UK MEP's who are not following the will of the referendum.  Be sure that TM will be winkling them out.  

[Srikcir]

27 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Nothing wrong with a presidential order in the biggest democracy in the world - is there?

I would think it would be wrong as the UK does not have a Republic presidential system of government such as France or USA. And even then, republics have constraints on legality of presidential orders. The biggest democracy in the world is India that does have a Parliamentary system of government like the UK and Germany; hence, they do not have presidential orders. 

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

To reiterate, nobody is claiming the EU was or is without fault; far from it. However, many of us feel the best way forward is to force change from within.

 

Knowledge about EU workings is very weak as frequently demonstrated here but no one is saying that there isn't a democratic deficit.

 

You often claim others are arrogant. Have you always felt like that?

Actually Grouse some posters on here have claimed the EU is the best thing since sliced bread and leaving it the UK will lose its democratic way.

You have mentioned the EU has faults and that you fee it is better to stay. We have been in the EU for 40 plus years and it hasn't changed. In fact it has become even more bureaucratically controlling and turned into the dictating force it is. Obviously I disagree as the original idea was a decent one but it has morphed into something very different. How many more years do you suggest we work and try and change it from within. Whilst your sentiments are honourable they are unachievable, as the EU has a set agenda and change is not in its vocabulary.

 

Please enlighten me were I have claimed often that others are arrogant. I have felt that the EU has turned into a united states of Europe, eroding cultures and traditions and penalizing those that don't conform to its ideology. So yes I want out. The sooner the better.

[jpinx]

33 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I would think it would be wrong as the UK does not have a Republic presidential system of government such as France or USA. And even then, republics have constraints on legality of presidential orders. The biggest democracy in the world is India that does have a Parliamentary system of government like the UK and Germany; hence, they do not have presidential orders. 

Oh dear -- everything has to be spelled out in forums.  The comparison with USA was to point out that a country's leader does have *some* clout, including the "leader" of the UK - HM the Queen. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by jpinx

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Nothing wrong with a presidential order in the biggest democracy in the world - is there?

 

What has India got to do with this?

[SheungWan]

18 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Oh dear -- everything has to be spelled out in forums.  The comparison with USA was to point out that a countries leader does have *some* clout, including the "leader" of the UK - HM the Queen. 

 

If anybody can follow this strangulated reasoning, good luck to you.

Edited January 8, 2017 by SheungWan

[Srikcir]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Oh dear -- everything has to be spelled out in forums.  The comparison with USA was to point out that a countries leader does have *some* clout, including the "leader" of the UK - HM the Queen. 

Maybe use correct terminalogy to make your analogy to avoid confusion.

Using the USA, as BOTH Head of State (like the UK Queen) and Head of Government (like the UK PM) the POTUS does have some clout without congressional approval to negotiate and sign treaties. But they are not legally binding without congressional approval.

 

With regard to the UK, it appears (as I am not an expert in English law) that "under English law the capacity to negotiate and conclude treaties falls entirely within the executive [PM and Cabinet] arm of government.Nominally, Parliament plays no role at all in this process." BUT it appears that the UK Parliament has the theoretical  (as in when it so chooses) power to intercede in such a process.

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=cklawreview

 

UK Treat-making.pdf

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Maybe use correct terminalogy to make your analogy to avoid confusion.

Using the USA, as BOTH Head of State (like the UK Queen) and Head of Government (like the UK PM) the POTUS does have some clout without congressional approval to negotiate and sign treaties. But they are not legally binding without congressional approval.

 

With regard to the UK, it appears (as I am not an expert in English law) that "under English law the capacity to negotiate and conclude treaties falls entirely within the executive [PM and Cabinet] arm of government.Nominally, Parliament plays no role at all in this process." BUT it appears that the UK Parliament has the theoretical  (as in when it so chooses) power to intercede in such a process.

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=cklawreview

 

UK Treat-making.pdf

The Supreme court is doing it's thing and we will know the answer soon enough.    

 

The sad thing is the wasted time while people stir things up as much as possible and try to subvert the referendum result. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by jpinx

[SheungWan]

7 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The Supreme court is doing it's thing and we will know the answer soon enough.    

 

The sad thing is the wasted time while people stir things up as much as possible and try to subvert the referendum result. 

 

Certainly a little time needs to be spent pointing out what's what to those who appear to have little understanding of the British constitution as is shown in their poor attempts to compare with the US constitution.

[rockingrobin]

42 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually Grouse some posters on here have claimed the EU is the best thing since sliced bread and leaving it the UK will lose its democratic way.

You have mentioned the EU has faults and that you fee it is better to stay. We have been in the EU for 40 plus years and it hasn't changed. In fact it has become even more bureaucratically controlling and turned into the dictating force it is. Obviously I disagree as the original idea was a decent one but it has morphed into something very different. How many more years do you suggest we work and try and change it from within. Whilst your sentiments are honourable they are unachievable, as the EU has a set agenda and change is not in its vocabulary.

 

Please enlighten me were I have claimed often that others are arrogant. I have felt that the EU has turned into a united states of Europe, eroding cultures and traditions and penalizing those that don't conform to its ideology. So yes I want out. The sooner the better.

Your post is contradictory,

It hasnt changed in 40 years , on the other hand it was a good idea but it has morphed into a dictating force

[pitrevie]

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Maybe use correct terminalogy to make your analogy to avoid confusion.

Using the USA, as BOTH Head of State (like the UK Queen) and Head of Government (like the UK PM) the POTUS does have some clout without congressional approval to negotiate and sign treaties. But they are not legally binding without congressional approval.

 

With regard to the UK, it appears (as I am not an expert in English law) that "under English law the capacity to negotiate and conclude treaties falls entirely within the executive [PM and Cabinet] arm of government.Nominally, Parliament plays no role at all in this process." BUT it appears that the UK Parliament has the theoretical  (as in when it so chooses) power to intercede in such a process.

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=cklawreview

 

UK Treat-making.pdf

 

Nothing has changed as Professor Michael Dougan so eloquently points out.

 

"The United Kingdom is a sovereign state under international law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the parliament in Westminster is the supreme law making authority in this country.

If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law in the event of a conflict with domestic law, it is purely because our parliament has expressly instructed them to do so in our own legislation."

Once again, parliament in Westminster is the supreme law making authority. Oliver Cromwell fought and won that battle in the 17th century and joining the EU hast changed that one bit.

[Laughing Gravy]

53 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Your post is contradictory,

It hasnt changed in 40 years , on the other hand it was a good idea but it has morphed into a dictating force

The  common market was a good idea with the 8 countries in it to help with trade. With 28 countries and its bureaucracy today the EU is totally different. Not contradictory at all. Two totally different organisations. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Laughing Gravy

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The  common market was a good idea with the 8 countries in it to help with trade. With 28 countries and its bureaucracy today the EU is totally different. Not contradictory at all. Two totally different organisations. 

Indeed!  Some of us have been saying this from the beginning, but the remainers are determined to wear it down with repetition of the same inaccurate and misleading statements.  Given that the discussion has not produced anything new for some time, and given the crappy forum software making posting and replying very hit-or-miss, I -- for one -- don't feel like having to correct the continuing willful misinterpretations of what is actually going on. 

[AlexRich]

3 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

This would be one of the 'democratic' guys who prefers Royal Prerogative to parliamentary democracy.

 

These guys love democracy and the rule of law ... as long as it upholds their viewpoint, but not when it doesn't ... then it becomes "enemies of the people".

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

Oh dear -- everything has to be spelled out in forums.  The comparison with USA was to point out that a country's leader does have *some* clout, including the "leader" of the UK - HM the Queen. 

 

That's right; ask Charles I ?

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

Indeed!  Some of us have been saying this from the beginning, but the remainers are determined to wear it down with repetition of the same inaccurate and misleading statements.  Given that the discussion has not produced anything new for some time, and given the crappy forum software making posting and replying very hit-or-miss, I -- for one -- don't feel like having to correct the continuing willful misinterpretations of what is actually going on. 

 

Sadly, it's you who chooses not to read and understand the history of the EU nor acknowledge ANY point raised by your interlocutors. You and your colleagues really are turning Brexit into a peasants' revolt! Such a pity we abandoned hanging, drawing and quartering in 1870! It would be such fun ?

Edited January 8, 2017 by Grouse

[7by7]

11 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So when can I get my democratic vote on the EU council and more important the commission?

 

I can vote in the general election and vote MPs in or out but the EU commission I can't and yes they are a self serving arrogant boys club.

 

You can vote for your MP in a General Election; bu you can't vote for the Prime Minister nor for whoever they choose to put in their Cabinet.

 

Remember that it is the PM and Cabinet who decide things in the UK; ordinary MPs are basically lobby fodder who vote the way they are told.

 

I see that you are still confused by the difference between the commission and the actual decision making bodies in the EU. Sorry, but I don't see how I can explain that any more simply than I already have.

 

5 hours ago, jpinx said:

This is the technical description of the EU, the reality is vastly different, as anyone who knows people on the "inside" will tell you (if they dare).  The "civil servants" are in control and manipulate all the decisions to further their own agenda. 

 

The exact same accusation can be, and often is, levelled at the Civil Service in the UK!

5 hours ago, jpinx said:

With the multitude of languages, translators are in very powerful positions and can alter the emphasis or even the concept of legislation just by using a different, but correct wording.  Look at the fun we all have with the translated immigration laws in Thailand.   

 

A very serious accusation, indeed. What evidence do you have of this?

 

[7by7]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually Grouse some posters on here have claimed the EU is the best thing since sliced bread and leaving it the UK will lose its democratic way.

 

Really?

 

I can't recall anyone saying that.

 

Can you give some examples?

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually Grouse some posters on here have claimed the EU is the best thing since sliced bread and leaving it the UK will lose its democratic way.

You have mentioned the EU has faults and that you fee it is better to stay. We have been in the EU for 40 plus years and it hasn't changed. In fact it has become even more bureaucratically controlling and turned into the dictating force it is. Obviously I disagree as the original idea was a decent one but it has morphed into something very different. How many more years do you suggest we work and try and change it from within. Whilst your sentiments are honourable they are unachievable, as the EU has a set agenda and change is not in its vocabulary.

 

Please enlighten me were I have claimed often that others are arrogant. I have felt that the EU has turned into a united states of Europe, eroding cultures and traditions and penalizing those that don't conform to its ideology. So yes I want out. The sooner the better.

 

Please sir, I don't like sliced bread; not even Hovis ( cue Dvorak )

 

One area the rest of the EU wins hands down is bread!

 

I am frankly astonished that some of the crap we sell in our supermarkets can still be legally described as bread!?

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You can vote for your MP in a General Election; bu you can't vote for the Prime Minister nor for whoever they choose to put in their Cabinet.

 

Remember that it is the PM and Cabinet who decide things in the UK; ordinary MPs are basically lobby fodder who vote the way they are told.

 

I see that you are still confused by the difference between the commission and the actual decision making bodies in the EU. Sorry, but I don't see how I can explain that any more simply than I already have.

 

 

The exact same accusation can be, and often is, levelled at the Civil Service in the UK!

 

A very serious accusation, indeed. What evidence do you have of this?

 

Evidence of this sort of subtle mis-behaving is ephemeral at best, but anyone who has experience of translation work is familiar with the multiple versions of "correct" word choices that will convey very different meanings.

 

There is no confusion about how the EU "works".  What there is a willful blindness by many EU-ites as to how the technical workings are actually implemented.  The MEP's might "make" the laws, but it's the eurocrats who take that creation and put it into action.  No-one in Brussels is in any doubt of the considerable scope for manipulation.  Yes - the UK civil service is accused of similar issues, but that is much easier to "catch"  because there is no language difference.

[Srikcir]

36 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Evidence of this sort of subtle mis-behaving is ephemeral at best, but anyone who has experience of translation work is familiar with the multiple versions of "correct" word choices that will convey very different meanings.

 

There is no confusion about how the EU "works".  What there is a willful blindness by many EU-ites as to how the technical workings are actually implemented.  The MEP's might "make" the laws, but it's the eurocrats who take that creation and put it into action.  No-one in Brussels is in any doubt of the considerable scope for manipulation.  Yes - the UK civil service is accused of similar issues, but that is much easier to "catch"  because there is no language difference.

So your issue is not with the EU decision-making body but with the EU bureaucrats not effectively carrying out those decisions or worse case scenario the bureaucrats are independently conspiring against the EU decision-makers to manipulate the result of their decisions?

[AlexRich]

I don't recall anyone on this thread or previous ones stating that the EU set up is some paragon of governance, I think everyone recognises that it is an organisation that could be run better and achieve more. Despite its faults it has been good for UK prosperity and has helped this region become more peaceful ... most remainers take the view that it is better to stay within, link up with like minded groups and argue the case within the EU ... not the cut your nose off to spite your face approach of the brexiteers ... when Putin, Wilders, Farage, Trump, and Le Pen are all in favour of something we should be on guard ... putting your future in the hands of extremists has never turned out well in the past.

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

I don't recall anyone on this thread or previous ones stating that the EU set up is some paragon of governance, I think everyone recognises that it is an organisation that could be run better and achieve more. Despite its faults it has been good for UK prosperity and has helped this region become more peaceful ... most remainers take the view that it is better to stay within, link up with like minded groups and argue the case within the EU ... not the cut your nose off to spite your face approach of the brexiteers ... when Putin, Wilders, Farage, Trump, and Le Pen are all in favour of something we should be on guard ... putting your future in the hands of extremists has never turned out well in the past.

 

That, is VERY well put!

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I don't recall anyone on this thread or previous ones stating that the EU set up is some paragon of governance, I think everyone recognises that it is an organisation that could be run better and achieve more. Despite its faults it has been good for UK prosperity and has helped this region become more peaceful ... most remainers take the view that it is better to stay within, link up with like minded groups and argue the case within the EU ... not the cut your nose off to spite your face approach of the brexiteers ... when Putin, Wilders, Farage, Trump, and Le Pen are all in favour of something we should be on guard ... putting your future in the hands of extremists has never turned out well in the past.

 

That, is VERY well put!

 

Is it buxton very well put! It's the usual hysterical claptrap from Alex, one of the many reasons why I don't normally see his posts. We're not putting our future in the hands of Putin, Wilders, Farage, Trump or Le Pen. And the implication that our country's defence would be compromised by not being in the EU is utter nonsense. The EU does not substantially enhance our defence in any way, shape or form.

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Is it buxton very well put! It's the usual hysterical claptrap from Alex, one of the many reasons why I don't normally see his posts. We're not putting our future in the hands of Putin, Wilders, Farage, Trump or Le Pen. And the implication that our country's defence would be compromised by not being in the EU is utter nonsense. The EU does not substantially enhance our defence in any way, shape or form.

 

True to form, another deliberate misinterpretation of a post.

 

The point was that a region that has had two massively destructive wars in the 20th Century has managed to get along quite peacefully since then ... as a result of closer economic and cultural ties, and EU membership has helped greatly to create that situation. A dis-united Europe is dangerous ... countries on the edge are more vulnerable to predators like Putin ... he has very good reasons to want to see the meltdown of the EU and a Trump presidency that is anti-NATO. And if he does move on a country we are back to more dangerous times. Brexit won because of immigration concerns, but the implications stretch way beyond these matters. When you align your interests with extremists don't be surprised if it backfires on you.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by AlexRich

[3NUMBAS]

It won't be easy with those mendacious scumbags in Brussels .who's only concern is to squeeze cash out of blighty till the last seconds