Another Brexit Casualty

[Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-08 6:32 PM

1 No, I am not advocating merely sitting back and waiting. I am advocating staying in the EU and working to improve it.

2 Agreed, but then, as above, I think we should stay in, get stuck in, and influence how it develops.

 

We seem to have had little directional influence ever since we joined the common market and there were but a handful of countries to talk to, so what makes anyone think we can alter the course of an even bigger monolith with so many other countries uniteing to steer in the opposite direction to the direction we seek?

 

If it ain't happened in forty plus years, and it was not available when the farcical DC first talked to the EU about leaving what makes anyone believe the monolith will change direction now - just for us?

 

A two speed EU, one speed heading for fuller integration, and a slower speed for trade only seems to be beyond what the EU can contemplate?

 

Perhaps when we are out and the EU income has shrunk they might begin to see things differently, but the way I see it to capitulate now and say 'sorry, we were wrong, can we stay after all?' would be even more of a disaster than the current disaster of trying to negotiate with an intransigent brick wall.

[derek pringle]

hi,

No people/gov't or nation should be too proud to change if it comes to light that things are not or will not be as they thought. This is why we have elections every 5 years so people have the chance to change their mind about who they want to govern them. This obviously indicates people may want a change of direction from their last decision. If on the one hand leavers believe that this is what the country want then they should not worry about a second referendum as is this not a chance to return a larger vote to leave.

On the other hand it gives the whole electorate the opportunity to cast a vote in a referendum that hopefully we will have more detail and a clearer view of what leaving will ACTUALLY mean, instead of all the scare stories we heard before.[from both sides]. I must say however that with the political changes and swings in other countries who knows what the EU will look like in 5 to 10 years.

cheers

derek

[John52]

I don't know of any other time when politicians were promising so much they can't deliver.

I think they will carry on putting their careers before us.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-10-09 11:18 AM

 

I don't know of any other time when politicians were promising so much they can't deliver.

I think they will carry on putting their careers before us.

 

We'll see on the 29/03/2019 if they can't deliver ;-) .........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

By way of a reply I'm going to post a Wiki link: http://tinyurl.com/yan7299j

 

I know Roger dismisses Wiki "cut and pastes", but they are from an open source, and are open to anyone to challenge on accuracy, so represent a distillation of the facts as presented by numerous authors. In effect, they are continually subject to peer review. So, for me, they transcend anything we read in newspapers, because so much of our press presents facts selected to suit its various biases.

 

It is primarily about the history of the European Parliament, but it contains links to articles about the European Coal and Steel Community, and from that to an article about Robert Schuman - that French minister of State with the oddly German name. Fascinating background - just imagine sharing that!

 

With the links it is a lot to read, but the picture that emerges of the history of these institutions, and the involvement of both Britain and the USA in their formation and evolution, were largely new to me. The dates at, and speed with, which the various institutions were founded are also surprising, being peripheral to the end of WW2.

 

What emerges, for me, explains the twists and turns of how we got to where we now are, but also reflects the reason why I hold the views that I do (albeit some of the information came as a surprise). Happy reading! :-)

[Tracker]

I can't say I am particularly interested in history - it is after all a thing of the past, not of the future and it's only value would be to help us avoid the mistakes of the past.

 

Many Britons readily understand and accept that Brittania no longer rules the waves but the being slaves bit is harder to accept.

 

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

 

And that is what the EU comes across as, oppressive to all that disagree, dictatorial, self serving and profligate, and that alone is why so many prefer the out to the in route for our future.

[John52]

Tracker - 2017-10-09 12:44 PM

And that is what the EU comes across as, oppressive to all that disagree, dictatorial, self serving and profligate.

 

If you could be bothered to read up on it instead of posting tripe on here, you would see the EU is more about egalitarianism.

Which, of course, is why the British Establishment doesn't like it.

With its Unelected House of Lords and extended Monarchy, Britain is the last country in Europe with the right to lecture anyone on Democracy - or what is 'serving and profligate'

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-10-09 1:39 PM

 

Tracker - 2017-10-09 12:44 PM

And that is what the EU comes across as, oppressive to all that disagree, dictatorial, self serving and profligate.

 

If you could be bothered to read up on it instead of posting tripe on here, you would see the EU is more about egalitarianism.

Which, of course, is why the British Establishment doesn't like it.

With its Unelected House of Lords and extended Monarchy, Britain is the last country in Europe with the right to lecture anyone on Democracy - or what is 'serving and profligate'

 

Remind me :-S ........When did I get the opportunity to vote for any of those who run the EU? *-) ........

 

 

[Tracker]

John52 - 2017-10-09 1:39 PM

If you could be bothered to read up on it instead of posting tripe on here, you would see the EU is more about egalitarianism.

 

Pot / Kettle??

 

When it comes to posting pure unadulterated tripe John, fortunatelrey you have no equal on here!

 

I have more faith in our own monarchy than ever I will have in the holier than thou ideals for Juncker and co - ideals that someone else always has to pay for.

 

Egalitarianism - the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

 

I see precious little sign of that within the Euopean Parliament and the EU leadership, unless you call noses in troughs where the many subsidise the few to excess, egalitarianism.

 

Every system in the world is unfair to someone, so on balance I prefer our own home grown greed to EU greed and fanaticism.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-10-09 1:59 PM

 

John52 - 2017-10-09 1:39 PM

 

Tracker - 2017-10-09 12:44 PM

And that is what the EU comes across as, oppressive to all that disagree, dictatorial, self serving and profligate.

 

If you could be bothered to read up on it instead of posting tripe on here, you would see the EU is more about egalitarianism.

Which, of course, is why the British Establishment doesn't like it.

With its Unelected House of Lords and extended Monarchy, Britain is the last country in Europe with the right to lecture anyone on Democracy - or what is 'serving and profligate'

 

Remind me :-S ........When did I get the opportunity to vote for any of those who run the EU? *-) ........

See what I mean about doing that bit of reading?

 

Despite all the claims that people knew what they were voting about during the referendum, I afraid to say that based on his statement above, Dave didn't and Rich is dubious

 

Sorry Dave (and Rich), but in answer to your question, on 5 May 2106 (UK general election), before then on 7 May 2015 (UK general election), and before then on 22 May 2014 (EU parliamentary election).

 

The British general elections give us our government, so our PM and ministers. The heads of State/governments make up the European Council, which is responsible for setting the strategic objectives for Europe. In other words, they tell the Commission which way to head.

 

The Council of the European Union (the relevant ministers), holds one third of the voting rights on what legislation the Commission can enact.

 

The (directly elected) members of the European parliament hold a further third of those voting rights.

 

The Commission holds the remaining third.

 

So, although the Commission can propose legislation, it cannot be enacted unless the Council, or the parliament, ratify it.

 

So, whatever you may have understood hitherto, the Commission cannot proceed alone and must have the support of the Council (indirectly elected), or the parliament (directly elected). So, in those elections you were voting for the people, just as when you elect your MP, who will decide what the EU does, and what laws it can introduce. Whether you agree with what they then do is a different matter, but you (along with the entire electorate of the EU) elect them.

 

You and Rich really should read this stuff, it explains why the EU is as it is, what it is, how it has evolved, how it works, and how it is likely to work in future.

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2017-10-09 2:32 PM.........................I have more faith in our own monarchy than ever I will have in the holier than thou ideals for Juncker and co - ideals that someone else always has to pay for.........................

Point of order! :-) Those you refer to as Juncker and co are transient. Their tenure is limited by their electorates. All governments, including that of the UK, have ideas, ideals, doctrines, and policies that "someone else (i.e. taxpayers) has to pay for". It is how governments are financed. So, how are those people any different?

 

You seem to be implying that our Monarchy, who can only exert limited influence behind the scenes because they have no executive authority, come at no cost to the taxpayer. They do not. They are a largish group of families, only one of whom at a time can be the hereditary Head of State, who have only a ceremonial role.

 

I happen to think that they should be replaced by an elected president, because I think our Prime Ministers have far too much power. But then, I think our upper house should also be elected (but not directly), because I think our parliament to too dominated by the foolishness of party politics. I also think we should move to something much closer to PR in order to break the present stranglehold of the two main parties, and prevent the costly policy lurches that entails.

 

In common with a number of other countries I think our Monarchy should be gratefully relieved of their state functions and duties, when they and their children could adopt something more akin to normal lives. They can't help being what they are, or who they are, but they are not selected from among the best available, and I think our head of state should be selected on merit, not by birth. We have an hereditary, titled, aristocracy, some of whom sit in the House of Lords, but otherwise have no legislative function, that has been inherited from our history. Our Monarchy should join them.

[Tracker]

Sorry Brian but while I do admit to being dubious, the UK elections did nothing to alter any facet of the EU. What they did give us was the chance to vote for any one of several sets of idealogical fanatics and opportunists.

Only one one one general election ever gave us the chance to get a referendum about staying in or leaving the EU and as far as I can recall that was the only opportunity since the last referendum in 1975.

So a democratic majority took it!

In those forty years the world and the common market has changed beyond all recognition but as far as I recall nobody asked me what I wanted beyond the UK elections and as all major parties were pro EU it mattered little who we voted for as far as the EU was concerned.

One thing I do know about history is that the decision makers love the phrase 'lessons will be learned' but what that really means is 'lessons will be learned but not acted upon'.

I am not interested in the history or how we got to where we are, only where we go from here.

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2017-10-09 4:45 PM

 

Sorry Brian but while I do admit to being dubious, the UK elections did nothing to alter any facet of the EU. What they did give us was the chance to vote for any one of several sets of idealogical fanatics and opportunists. ...........................

Rich, since we joined the EEC, all our elections have altered facets of it. That is what I am saying.

 

It was a UK election that took us into the EEC.

 

It was a UK election that called both referendums on our continued membership.

 

It is UK elections that have contributed PMs and ministers to the decision making bodies of the EEC/EU. Our fingerprints are all over the EU, through the treaties we have signed and the legislation and directives to which we have contributed. We have elected MEPs to the European parliament who have (with notable exceptions) also debated and influenced the legislation and directives the EEC/EU has issued. Dammit, we pretty much invented the EEC/EU! :-D

 

I just don't understand how you can advance that claim - unless you simply mean we don't always get exactly the outcome you would like. But, if that is your concern, are you always satisfied with the outcomes of UK government decisions, whatever they may be, and whichever government made them? If you are, you've kept it a very closely guarded secret over the years! :-D

[Tracker]

No Brian it has nothing to do with my personal likes and dislikes.

When all major parties are commited to staying in the EU as they have been for years it makes no difference which party is in government because leaving the EU was never an option until DC's offer.

I voted to join a common market all those years ago, and I would vote to remain in a purely trade and customs common market now, but I never had the option to democratically decide if I wanted to be part of the larger integration of Europe or to be dictated to by Bruxelles, and Bruxelles seem to be making it very clear how they view anyone who doubts their goal, which kinda makes them even less attractive as long term partners.

Sorry but on balance it is not a club to which I wish to belong and I thank Mr Cameron for giving me the opportunity to say so.

[Violet1956]

I’ve been reading recent posts in this thread with interest. I thank Brian for his excellent exposition of the workings of the EU. To my mind the EU is a little too left leaning for the average Brit. I question whether that is because most of us are blind to the way in which people with vested interests and great power in the UK are so adept at securing the best possible outcome for themselves by pretending that they have the interests of us all at heart.

 

Veronica

[Tracker]

Violet1956 - 2017-10-09 6:08 PM

 

I’ve been reading recent posts in this thread with interest. I thank Brian for his excellent exposition of the workings of the EU. To my mind the EU is a little too left leaning for the average Brit. I question whether that is because most of us are blind to the way in which people with vested interests and great power in the UK are so adept at securing the best possible outcome for themselves by pretending that they have the interests of us all at heart.

 

Veronica

 

Fair comment Veronica, but isn't the same true of the EU politicians and officials, indeed isn't the same true in every country from North Korea seemingly the epitome of anti freedom to the USA allegedly the epitome of freedom, and everywhere else in between?

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-09 4:20 PM

So, in those elections you were voting for the people, just as when you elect your MP, who will decide what the EU does, and what laws it can introduce. Whether you agree with what they then do is a different matter, but you (along with the entire electorate of the EU) elect them.

 

Which is why I voted for UKIP >:-) ..........

 

 

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-09 4:44 PM

Tracker - 2017-10-09 2:32 PM.........................I have more faith in our own monarchy than ever I will have in the holier than thou ideals for Juncker and co - ideals that someone else always has to pay for.........................

Point of order! :-) Those you refer to as Juncker and co are transient. Their tenure is limited by their electorates. All governments, including that of the UK, have ideas, ideals, doctrines, and policies that "someone else (i.e. taxpayers) has to pay for". It is how governments are financed. So, how are those people any different?You seem to be implying that our Monarchy, who can only exert limited influence behind the scenes because they have no executive authority, come at no cost to the taxpayer. They do not. They are a largish group of families, only one of whom at a time can be the hereditary Head of State, who have only a ceremonial role. I happen to think that they should be replaced by an elected president, because I think our Prime Ministers have far too much power. But then, I think our upper house should also be elected (but not directly), because I think our parliament to too dominated by the foolishness of party politics. I also think we should move to something much closer to PR in order to break the present stranglehold of the two main parties, and prevent the costly policy lurches that entails. In common with a number of other countries I think our Monarchy should be gratefully relieved of their state functions and duties, when they and their children could adopt something more akin to normal lives. They can't help being what they are, or who they are, but they are not selected from among the best available, and I think our head of state should be selected on merit, not by birth. We have an hereditary, titled, aristocracy, some of whom sit in the House of Lords, but otherwise have no legislative function, that has been inherited from our history. Our Monarchy should join them.

Here endeth the Republican lesson........now understanding the obfuscation, twists, turns and spin emanating heretofore all becomes clear now one has come out of the, as it were, republican closet.  Looks like you and our resident anti royalist loon could be bezzy mates ......  :-)

Oh and please remind me who voted that under qualified, bullying autocrat Juncker into a position of great influence and why?  This article should prove interesting reading for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

You say Juncker et al have a tenure determined by the electorate?  I can't say I recall having the opportunity to have my say in the matter. I suspect this is another case of the truth fraying at the edges.....just to make things a little fuzzy and unclear.

Anyway as before I suspect we will agree to disagree but I do strongly question your wait and see......get what we deserve.....President etc viewpoints.  Using your desired model we could have had President Blair.................heaven help us.

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-10-09 6:38 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-09 4:20 PM

So, in those elections you were voting for the people, just as when you elect your MP, who will decide what the EU does, and what laws it can introduce. Whether you agree with what they then do is a different matter, but you (along with the entire electorate of the EU) elect them.

 

Which is why I voted for UKIP >:-) ..........

 

Yes, Dave, we know! :-D However, you question was "Remind me ........When did I get the opportunity to vote for any of those who run the EU? ........ "

 

My reply, simply stated, is that you've always had that opportunity. Who you chose to vote for is a different matter! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-09 8:28 PM.............................

 

Oh and please remind me who voted that under qualified, bullying autocrat Juncker into a position of great influence and why?

Those MEPs that you, me, and everyone else, elected. Who else?

 

This article should prove interesting reading for you:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

Agreed, quite an eye opener! Good find!

 

You say Juncker et al have a tenure determined by the electorate?  I can't say I recall having the opportunity to have my say in the matter. I suspect this is another case of the truth fraying at the edges.....just to make things a little fuzzy and unclear.

Don't know why you should find that so confusing. It is stated in the linked article that his tenure is five years. Is this wrong? You don't get to elect British PMs either, so why would you expect a personal vote on an EU post? Your vote is in UK, for the UK government (who seem to have played an absolute blinder over Juncker, don't you think? :-)), and for you MEP. What more do you want, and how would it help if you got it?

 

Anyway as before I suspect we will agree to disagree but I do strongly question your wait and see......get what we deserve.....President etc viewpoints.  Using your desired model we could have had President Blair.................heaven help us.

I know, and I'm happy for you to do so. And yes, we might have had Blair, or Cameron, or anyone else you choose to cite, as President. But we'd first have had to vote for them. So, it seems to me that despite your numerous claims that I'm anti-democratic while you're the great democrat, you have greater reservations over the reach of democracy than me. Interesting! :-D

[Tracker]

For weeks we had to endure Brian complaining about how inadequate democracy was, basically because the Brexit vote did not go the way he wanted?

Now it seems he is the great defender of the UK electoral democratic system?

Which is it to be Brian?

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2017-10-10 2:52 PM

 

For weeks we had to endure Brian complaining about how inadequate democracy was, basically because the Brexit vote did not go the way he wanted?

Now it seems he is the great defender of the UK electoral democratic system?

Which is it to be Brian?

Now Rich, did I say that? Really? You'll have to show me where.

So yes, I support democracy, and especially the UK version of it, warts and all.

 

What I don't support is government's attempt at hiving off responsibility for taking the most onerous and complex decision the UK has had to make since 1939, onto a population that had little chance of basing their decision on adequate facts. That is what I consider undemocratic.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 1:45 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-09 8:28 PM............................. Oh and please remind me who voted that under qualified, bullying autocrat Juncker into a position of great influence and why?

Those MEPs that you, me, and everyone else, elected. Who else?

This article should prove interesting reading for you:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

Agreed, quite an eye opener! Good find!

You say Juncker et al have a tenure determined by the electorate?  I can't say I recall having the opportunity to have my say in the matter. I suspect this is another case of the truth fraying at the edges.....just to make things a little fuzzy and unclear.

Don't know why you should find that so confusing. It is stated in the linked article that his tenure is five years. Is this wrong? You don't get to elect British PMs either, so why would you expect a personal vote on an EU post? Your vote is in UK, for the UK government (who seem to have played an absolute blinder over Juncker, don't you think? :-)), and for you MEP. What more do you want, and how would it help if you got it?

Anyway as before I suspect we will agree to disagree but I do strongly question your wait and see......get what we deserve.....President etc viewpoints.  Using your desired model we could have had President Blair.................heaven help us.

I know, and I'm happy for you to do so. And yes, we might have had Blair, or Cameron, or anyone else you choose to cite, as President. But we'd first have had to vote for them. So, it seems to me that despite your numerous claims that I'm anti-democratic while you're the great democrat, you have greater reservations over the reach of democracy than me. Interesting! :-D

Firstly the placing of Juncker was a stitch up in which Germany and France played a big part.  I agree it's down to a vote by those 'we' voted in however when the nomination process is flawed and distorted in a process 'we' have no control over then that is not democracy.

Me claiming to be the great democrat and you the anti democrat?  Yet another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up.  I never claimed to be 'great' anything. Equally I recall only commenting on your apparent inability to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum.  I don't recall calling you anti democratic. 

Interestingly you ask the question what more do I want and how would I use it.   Actually I would prefer less.  Less domination of the EU by Germany and France in terms of direction and financial influence, less mouthing off by the likes of Juncker, less interference in national domestic affairs......in fact less of everything political and get back to the core raison d'etre of the EU ....in historical terms back to the Common Market which as a concept I consider excellent. 

Unfortunately it was driven to ever greater, all encompassing reach and influence by self important politicians delivering us the monolith we have today and I rejoice in our leaving.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-10 3:23 PM

Tracker - 2017-10-10 2:52 PMFor weeks we had to endure Brian complaining about how inadequate democracy was, basically because the Brexit vote did not go the way he wanted?Now it seems he is the great defender of the UK electoral democratic system?Which is it to be Brian?

Now Rich, did I say that? Really? You'll have to show me where. So yes, I support democracy, and especially the UK version of it, warts and all. What I don't support is government's attempt at hiving off responsibility for taking the most onerous and complex decision the UK has had to make since 1939, onto a population that had little chance of basing their decision on adequate facts. That is what I consider undemocratic.

But that is the core of the matter......there 'are no facts'....there will be no facts until the negotiation process is complete because until such is achieved any comment or claim is purely conjecture.  So what should have been done?.....have the leaving negotiations take place, determine the terms and conditions and 'then' have a vote?  Somehow I don't think the EU would play ball with that scenario.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-10 4:11 PM...................

1 Me claiming to be the great democrat and you the anti democrat?  Yet another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up.  I never claimed to be 'great' anything.

 

2 Equally I recall only commenting on your apparent inability to accept, without twist, spin and sowing confusion, the absolute undisputed result of the referendum.  I don't recall calling you anti democratic. ..............

1 Well, see your 2 above. Not for the first time, you allege "twist, spin, and sowing confusion" (in other words dishonesty) on my part. You say this relates to my "apparent inability to accept................. the absolute undisputed result of the referendum". I do not, and to the best of my recollection, never have, dispute the result of the referendum. It would, after all, be rather foolish to deny that 17,410,742 people voted, to leave while 16,141,241 voted to remain. It is a matter of record.

 

I dispute many things about the referendum, but not its result.

 

In respect of it being "another case of inserting and attributing comments to others when it is you who have made them up": (see your 2 above) physician, heal thyself! :-D

 

Back to 1: I note your objection to my bit of poetic licence over our respective stances regarding democracy. OK, objection noted, but at least it was not an allegation of dishonesty, such as you have so often, in various ways, aimed at me. If you will hand it out, you must expect, eventually, to get some back! :-D