Brexit's effect on UK 'will be profound and unpredictable', lawmakers say

[puck2]

1 hour ago, OJAS said:

Several unsuccessful attempts to this end have already been made (most recently with Cameron's futile attempts pre-Referendum). Unfortunately those who lead the EU have made it clear that they have absolutely no interest in the fundamental reform which is clearly needed for its continued existence but instead cling to the outdated and idealistic notion of establishing an artificial USSR-style superstate across the outdatedEuropean continent - and we all know what happened to that particular superstate!

<............>

Would you pleas give us some examples of

• fundamental reforms, needed for its continued existence
• outdated and idealistic notion of establishing an artificial USSR-style superstate

 

.....

[rufanuf]

20 minutes ago, puck2 said:

Would you pleas give us some examples of

• fundamental reforms, needed for its continued existence
• outdated and idealistic notion of establishing an artificial USSR-style superstate

 

.....

Appointees should not be allowed to pass laws that affect voters in a democracy. This should be done by members of a parliament that have been DIRECTLY voted for by the populace.

 

The European Union should remain an adminstrative department of its constituents. It should not be becoming an executive. IE what does it need an army for?

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, puck2 said:

Would you pleas give us some examples of

• fundamental reforms, needed for its continued existence
• outdated and idealistic notion of establishing an artificial USSR-style superstate

 

.....

If you don't have a clue by now of the fundamental, desirable, necessary reforms - then there is no point in debating the issue.

 

It would be preferable for everyone if the EU survived the growing unhappiness within various wealthier EU countries - by at least pretending  to make some reforms.

 

Instead, they prefer to rely on punishment tactics and insisting that negotiations cannot start until the UK has agreed to pay extortionate sums of money to leave...

[dunroaming]

I am not going to keep banging the same old drum about Brexit because it is clear that every day there are going to be more "opinions" being released by everyone and their dog.  It is going to be some time before we get any actual facts and the government will be careful how these are presented to the people because they will be conscious of the possible backlash.

 

Until someone involved in the negotiations says "This is what is agreed" then we are all p*ssing in the wind.

[7by7]

 

57 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

Appointees should not be allowed to pass laws that affect voters in a democracy. This should be done by members of a parliament that have been DIRECTLY voted for by the populace.

 

The European Union should remain an adminstrative department of its constituents. It should not be becoming an executive. IE what does it need an army for?

By 'appointees' I assume you mean the commission?

 

The commission does not pass laws. All EU laws are either agreed by the European Council, made up of the heads of state of all members, the Council of Ministers, made up of elected ministers from each member state's elected government and appointed by those governments, or by the European Parliament, made up of directly elected members.

 

The commission plays a similar role as the civil service in most democracies, including the UK; advising where required and then implementing the laws passed by the elected members.

 

One could argue that the European Court of Justice, being the highest court in the EU, can inflict it's will on member governments, but the rulings of the ECJ are based upon the various treaties and regulations previously agreed by those governments.

 

EU army? Not really; very similar in structure, and part of, NATO: although France and Germany would like to see closer cooperation leading, perhaps, to a combined force outside NATO. See Military of the European Union.

[rufanuf]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

By 'appointees' I assume you mean the commission?

 

The commission does not pass laws. All EU laws are either agreed by the European Council, made up of the heads of state of all members, the Council of Ministers, made up of elected ministers from each member state's elected government and appointed by those governments, or by the European Parliament, made up of directly elected members.

 

The commission plays a similar role as the civil service in most democracies, including the UK; advising where required and then implementing the laws passed by the elected members.

 

One could argue that the European Court of Justice, being the highest court in the EU, can inflict it's will on member governments, but the rulings of the ECJ are based upon the various treaties and regulations previously agreed by those governments.

 

EU army? Not really; very similar in structure, and part of, NATO: although France and Germany would like to see closer cooperation leading, perhaps, to a combined force outside NATO. See Military of the European Union.

A big part of the problem is that EU and its various bodies are opaque. Knowone really understands IT nor how the people working within in it got there, with the exception perhaps of MEPS. Not to mention the fact that simply put the employees of the EU are  too far removed both geographically and constitutionally from the people they represent for it to ever be deemed democratic. I think the only way that could change is to change it's structure completely. Centralised Power = Bad Idea. That's always been the case throughout history.

Edited July 19, 2017 by rufanuf

[7by7]

19 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

<snip>

Not to mention the fact that simply put the employees of the EU are  too far removed both geographically and constitutionally from the people they represent for it to ever be deemed democratic

Except that the employees of the EU, from the commissioners down, are simply that; employees.

 

They represent their employers; the democratically elected, and therefore accountable, head of each member state, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

 

EU facts behind the claims: democracy

 

European Union law

[Baerboxer]

9 hours ago, terryw said:

The UK government has repeatedly said that the Devolved governments will get control over fishing, agriculture and other areas of the economy controlled by the EU.

 

With regard to the Supremacy of EU law, are they seriously suggesting that the oldest major democracy in the World is incapable of replacing these laws with UK or Scottish laws?

 

This seems to be another example of Remoaners saying that leaving the EU will be a disaster because we will no longer be controlled by EU laws.

 

 

 

That was / would've bean one of the major stumbling blocks going forward as certain politicians push for more closer EU integration.

 

The Law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland are Common Law based systems with long histories. Scotland has a codified / common law hybrid. 

 

Most other EU member states have Codified legal systems based on Napoleonic Codification of Law. 

 

So yep, the UK has a different, older, legal tradition and is quite capable of replacing any EU with a version suitable for its own system.

 

The issue is people are concerned that politicians will use the change to water down things they don't like, on Human Rights, Civil Protection etc.

[rufanuf]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Except that the employees of the EU, from the commissioners down, are simply that; employees.

 

They represent their employers; the democratically elected, and therefore accountable, head of each member state, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

 

EU facts behind the claims: democracy

 

European Union law

Did you read what I wrote?

[Retiredandhappyhere]

55 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That was / would've bean one of the major stumbling blocks going forward as certain politicians push for more closer EU integration.

 

The Law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland are Common Law based systems with long histories. Scotland has a codified / common law hybrid. 

 

Most other EU member states have Codified legal systems based on Napoleonic Codification of Law. 

 

So yep, the UK has a different, older, legal tradition and is quite capable of replacing any EU with a version suitable for its own system.

 

The issue is people are concerned that politicians will use the change to water down things they don't like, on Human Rights, Civil Protection etc.

The point is though that if they do that, they will at least be answerable to the electorate and could find themselves out of office at the next election.  As a member of the EU, the general public in the UK feel that they have no say whatsoever when regulations are passed by the EU which affect their lives and which they do not like.  The EU has got too big for its boots and now wants to get even bigger, led by new boy, Macron and of course the ever present Merkel.  Just look at some of the statements it has made since Brexit, many of which sound like a schoolmaster threatening punishment on a naughty child for wanting to leave his school and to be managed at home.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Retiredandhappyhere said:

The point is though that if they do that, they will at least be answerable to the electorate and could find themselves out of office at the next election.  As a member of the EU, the general public in the UK feel that they have no say whatsoever when regulations are passed by the EU which affect their lives and which they do not like.  The EU has got too big for its boots and now wants to get even bigger, led by new boy, Macron and of course the ever present Merkel.  Just look at some of the statements it has made since Brexit, many of which sound like a schoolmaster threatening punishment on a naughty child for wanting to leave his school and to be managed at home.

 

That's somewhat of a myth.  And presumably the 48% who voted to remain don't feel that.

 

The UK has MEP's. The turnout in European Parliament elections isn't usually high. People have the right to vote but if they don't use it then they really only have themselves to blame.

 

The much maligned European Commission President is appointed to that role by the elected heads of member states.

 

Undoubtedly there is much, probably too much, bureaucracy. But the processes and procedures have been heavily influenced by France and Germany, both of which have a love of bureaucracy.

 

I would agree that some of the comments both just before and since the Brexit referendum have been childish, arrogant, provocative, spiteful and in some cases demonstrate the underlying racism, bigotry and self national interest that pervades just under the surface.

 

 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's somewhat of a myth.  And presumably the 48% who voted to remain don't feel that.

 

The UK has MEP's. The turnout in European Parliament elections isn't usually high. People have the right to vote but if they don't use it then they really only have themselves to blame.

 

The much maligned European Commission President is appointed to that role by the elected heads of member states.

 

Undoubtedly there is much, probably too much, bureaucracy. But the processes and procedures have been heavily influenced by France and Germany, both of which have a love of bureaucracy.

 

I would agree that some of the comments both just before and since the Brexit referendum have been childish, arrogant, provocative, spiteful and in some cases demonstrate the underlying racism, bigotry and self national interest that pervades just under the surface.

 

 

I appreciate your constructive comments, but presumably the 52% who voted to leave did feel as I said.  

 

I would also suggest that the reason why people cannot be bothered to vote for their MEP is because they feel that he is almost irrelevant to the UK in the European Parliament of 28 countries, being so remote from them and their interests.  Most voters would be unable to name or recognize their MEP, unless he happened to be Nigel Farage.  Many despise the European gravy train which existence is reinforced by the EU's failure to have its accounts signed off by the auditors for the last  20 years or so.  No business would be able to get away with this, but the arrogance displayed by the EU enables it merely to shrug its collective shoulders and march ever onwards in the same vein. 

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Retiredandhappyhere said:

I appreciate your constructive comments, but presumably the 52% who voted to leave did feel as I said.  

 

I would also suggest that the reason why people cannot be bothered to vote for their MEP is because they feel that he is almost irrelevant to the UK in the European Parliament of 28 countries, being so remote from them and their interests.  Most voters would be unable to name or recognize their MEP, unless he happened to be Nigel Farage.  Many despise the European gravy train which existence is reinforced by the EU's failure to have its accounts signed off by the auditors for the last  20 years or so.  No business would be able to get away with this, but the arrogance displayed by the EU enables it merely to shrug its collective shoulders and march ever onwards in the same vein. 

 

It's amazing how many people feel that their own views are representative of "the general public," and believe the majority think the same. 

 

Voter apathy is triggered by a number of factors. Nevertheless, not bothering, rather than abstaining as a protest, and do you know how many fall into which category, doesn't actually achieve anything. Only gets politicians you might not agree with. But moaning doesn't change that or deselect them.

 

The EU has many issues, corruption being one of them. But then with 28 member states, each with its own unique culture towards what's honest, ethical and acceptable that's not surprising. And could ironically fuel the argument for closer integration and harmonization of practices. The fact the auditors have refused to sign of the accounts for so long is scandalous. But some member states are used to corrupt, ineffective politicians and governments and see that as a norm.

 

But rather than simply leaving, especially based on lies and rhetoric, yes I know all those campaigning to remain did their share too, Britain may well have been better off remaining and trying to be a force for what it believes to be good.

 

I suspect many who voted to leave can't understand why all that money isn't being pumped into the NHS already. Or why they still see immigrants walking around; and why unemployment isn't zero. 

[William C F Pierce]

14 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Dismantle the damn thing already…was a stupid idea from the start…..made things more expensive than ever.

A United States of Europe was Sir Winston Churchill's idea in 1947 speaking at Zurich University, so are you saying he was stupid? He was a lot smarter than you will ever be. Quite a number of expats in Thailand voted for Brexit and like ostriches with heads in the sand, they are willing to accept a lower value pension based on exchange rates.  Every day there is new problem reported caused by Brexit. Holidays more expensive, inflation rising, no £350 million for hospitals, businesses aready moving to Europe or making plans to. People did not see or know the consequences when they voted for Brexit. The Brexit Minister David Davis is quoted as saying he hasn't a clue and he's in charge of the negotiations. The high costs in the UK are of the UK's own making not Europe. The 20% VAT will not fall on leaving Europe it will more likely go up because of the cost of Brexit. The UK mismanaged its own economy not Europe; it did not create the UK's own dodgy bank actions.

[Thongkorn]

Ironic that England has the Magna Carta, nearly every Country in the world uses parts of it, many Countries Jurisdiction about law is based on it. And the EU muppets   have the nerve to say Britain will struggle, 

[Scott]

A post with an altered quote has been removed.   Here's the rule:

 

2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Such posts will be deleted and the user warned.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

14 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

If you don't have a clue by now of the fundamental, desirable, necessary reforms - then there is no point in debating the issue.

 

It would be preferable for everyone if the EU survived the growing unhappiness within various wealthier EU countries - by at least pretending  to make some reforms.

 

Instead, they prefer to rely on punishment tactics and insisting that negotiations cannot start until the UK has agreed to pay extortionate sums of money to leave...

This is so very true and as we know the YK tried and tried but was knocked down by the EU. I find it ironic the the liberals and left start shouting and stamping their feet about their rights and freedom of speech and vote when the EU and its structure doesn't allow for this. It is their way or no way, so no reform and we will punish you for daring to question what we demand.

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

Ironic that England has the Magna Carta, nearly every Country in the world uses parts of it, many Countries Jurisdiction about law is based on it. And the EU muppets   have the nerve to say Britain will struggle, 

What's really shocking is the unkind comments people make about Italy. The Roman Empire granted all its citizens in the empire the right to due process. Just so unfair.

[melvinmelvin]

16 hours ago, rufanuf said:

Appointees should not be allowed to pass laws that affect voters in a democracy. This should be done by members of a parliament that have been DIRECTLY voted for by the populace.

 

The European Union should remain an adminstrative department of its constituents. It should not be becoming an executive. IE what does it need an army for?

 

???

 

The EU is not an executive. The EU is not an administrative department.

The EU is an international treaty based intergovernmengal organisation of sovereign states.

 

[7by7]

18 hours ago, rufanuf said:

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes, hence my response.

[7by7]

13 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

Ironic that England has the Magna Carta, nearly every Country in the world uses parts of it, many Countries Jurisdiction about law is based on it. And the EU muppets   have the nerve to say Britain will struggle, 

What has the Magna Carta, which actually was about the rights and freedoms of the barons and contains nothing about the rights and freedoms of the ordinary populace, got to do with the economic problems the UK may or may not face post Brexit?

 

It contains nothing about international trade, customs unions, currency exchange rates etc.!

[rufanuf]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, hence my response.

You read it partially, hence your partial response.

[rufanuf]

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

???

 

The EU is not an executive. The EU is not an administrative department.

The EU is an international treaty based intergovernmengal organisation of sovereign states.

 

Therefore it should not be allowed to administer or execute anything right? What the EU actually is, is an enormous wart, a drain on its member states.

Edited July 20, 2017 by rufanuf

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

You read it partially, hence your partial response.

I responded to the main thrust of your post, you repeated claim that the EU is undemocratic; as I made clear.

 

What part of you post needs addressing further?

 

19 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

???

 

The EU is not an executive. The EU is not an administrative department.

The EU is an international treaty based intergovernmengal organisation of sovereign states. What the EU actually is, is an enormous wart, a drain on its member states.

Therefore it should not be allowed to administor or execute anything right?

You obviously fail to understand the difference between the legislature and the administration!

 

The first makes laws, the second administers those laws on behalf of the legislature.

 

Under the various treaties, from the Treaty of Rome on, which form the basis of the EU as it is today, in the EU the legislature is made up of three branches. In descending order of power and importance they are:-

1. The Council, made up of the head of each member state's government.
2. The Council of Ministers; made up of ministers from the elected government of each member state.
3. The European Parliament, made up of members directly elected by the citizens of each member state.

The administration is the Commission; which is very similar in many ways the UK civil service. Whilst the Commission may advise the legislature it does not make laws. It's role is to administer the laws made by the legislature.

 

I've explained this to you three times now; got it yet?

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by 7by7
Edited to add rufanuf's edit which was made whilst i was typing.

[rufanuf]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I responded to the main thrust of your post, you repeated claim that the EU is undemocratic; as I made clear.

 

What part of you post needs addressing further?

 

You obviously fail to understand the difference between the legislature and the administration!

 

The first makes laws, the second administers those laws on behalf of the legislature.

 

Under the various treaties, from the Treaty of Rome on, which form the basis of the EU as it is today, in the EU the legislature is made up of three branches. In descending order of power and importance they are:-

1. The Council, made up of the head of each member state's government.
2. The Council of Ministers; made up of ministers from the elected government of each member state.
3. The European Parliament, made up of members directly elected by the citizens of each member state.

The administration is the Commission; which is very similar in many ways the UK civil service. Whilst the Commission may advise the legislature it does not make laws. It's role is to administer the laws made by the legislature.

 

I've explained this to you three times now; got it yet?

 

 

The "main thrust of my post" is that the EU is by design undemocratic, and your efforts to explain its workings illustrate the problems more eloquently than I ever could.

Edited July 20, 2017 by rufanuf

[melvinmelvin]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I responded to the main thrust of your post, you repeated claim that the EU is undemocratic; as I made clear.

 

What part of you post needs addressing further?

 

You obviously fail to understand the difference between the legislature and the administration!

 

The first makes laws, the second administers those laws on behalf of the legislature.

 

Under the various treaties, from the Treaty of Rome on, which form the basis of the EU as it is today, in the EU the legislature is made up of three branches. In descending order of power and importance they are:-

1. The Council, made up of the head of each member state's government.
2. The Council of Ministers; made up of ministers from the elected government of each member state.
3. The European Parliament, made up of members directly elected by the citizens of each member state.

The administration is the Commission; which is very similar in many ways the UK civil service. Whilst the Commission may advise the legislature it does not make laws. It's role is to administer the laws made by the legislature.

 

I've explained this to you three times now; got it yet?

 

 

 

I beg your pardon?

 

No, I do not fail to understand.

I know extremely well how the EU is structured and how it works/goes about its business.

 

See post#49, I just commented on a post with a somewhat slack grip on EU.

 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

The "main thrust of post" is that the EU is by design undemocratic, and your efforts to explain its workings illustrate the problems more eloquently than I could.

A point I addressed in my response to that post, and have now addressed three times in total!

 

How is a council made up of the heads of the elected governments of each member state undemocratic?

 

How is a council made up of ministers from the elected government of each member sate undemocratic?

 

How is a directly elected Parliament undemocratic?

 

 

 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I beg your pardon?

 

No, I do not fail to understand.

I know extremely well how the EU is structured and how it works/goes about its business.

 

See post#49, I just commented on a post with a somewhat slack grip on EU.

 

I included you post to show the one rufanuf was answering.

 

My comment was addressed to him, not you.

 

Apols if that was not clear.

Edited July 20, 2017 by 7by7

[rufanuf]

Just now, 7by7 said:

A point I addressed in my response to that post, and have now addressed three times in total!

 

How is a council made up of the heads of the elected governments of each member state undemocratic?

 

How is a council made up of ministers from the elected government of each member sate undemocratic?

 

How is a directly elected Parliament undemocratic?

 

 

 

1. Because the council is made up up of the heads of elected governments. Not by people voted into THAT position by the voting public. Got it?

 

2. As above.

 

3. Yes that's the bit that's democratic, yet by design has utterly no influence over those above, when a parliament SHOULD.

 

See really simple ain't it?

[7by7]

1 minute ago, rufanuf said:

1. Because the council is made up up of the heads of elected governments. Not by people voted into THAT position by the voting public. Got it?

 

2. As above.

 

3. Yes that's the bit that's democratic, yet by design has utterly no influence over those above, when a parliament SHOULD.

 

See really simple ain't it?

So you believe the government of the UK is undemocratic because the head of our government, the Prime Minister, is not directly elected and the ministers in the cabinet are appointed by the Prime Minister?