Voting for Brexit

[Dave]

“ your another loser dave you dont like it”

As ever, Amazon, it is a delight to bask in the radiance of your charm 😏

[marpleexile]

your another loser dave you dont like it .

No we don't. Why should/would we?

[amazon]

Wragg likes to boast of his interest in education. I believe he was a teacher for a short time, and in the last parliament he served as a member of the backbench education select committee.

But all that obviously counts for nothing, because he’s a scorched-earth Brexiteer and everything is secondary to that.

Sad times 😕your another loser dave you dont like it .

[Dave]

Wragg likes to boast of his interest in education. I believe he was a teacher for a short time, and in the last parliament he served as a member of the backbench education select committee.

But all that obviously counts for nothing, because he’s a scorched-earth Brexiteer and everything is secondary to that.

Sad times 😕

[wheels]

I see William Wragg has voted to remove the rights of Students to take part in Erasmus, an extraordinary programme of trans-European educational exchange, from which millions benefited over the years.

How sad that our children and grandchildren will no longer have that opportunity. Of course the wealthy will be able to afford to pay for their children and grandchildren to study abroad. 😡

[Dave]

the unelected Commission/civil service proposes legislation that is approved by the European Parliament, which is the wrong way round to the way we do it here in the UK 

One more try.........  As I have already explained, Melancholy, the 28 European Commissioners (soon to be 27, sadly) are each appointed (or "appointed" if you prefer ;-) by the democratically elected government of their own member state.  The commissioners propose legislation to the elected EU parliament, which considers it and approves it (or not).

In the UK, the equivalents of EU Commissioners are our Ministers of the Crown, who are also appointed, in their case by our unelected monarch, on the recommendation of our elected Prime Minister.   Ministers propose legislation to the UK parliament, which considers it and approves it (or not).

They are slightly different processes but they are both undoubtedly democratic.   If there is one that is more democratic than the other, it is the EU procedure, because the decisions of the EU Parliament cannot be changed by an unelected upper chamber. 

[Melancholyflower]

Quote from: wheels on November 10, 2019, 07:22:02 PM
I wonder why we don't have the blue passport brigade clamoring for us to leave the un-elected, un-accountable, undemocratic NATO.

Perhaps because NATO is not a political alliance, but a military one.  Its raison d'etre died with the Soviet Union, but vested interests kept it going. 

***

wheels, see above, I answered you two months ago. An entirely separate matter.

Can you explain why you want to take my and others citizenship away, why you what to remove my freedom of movement and for no measurable benefit.

Was this directed at me? If so, can you point me to where I said that, please?

A bit of light reading for Melancholy 😏. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2019/02/19/is-the-european-union-governed-by-unelected-bureaucrats/

Dave posts links without bothering to respond properly to what I've said. It's also clear he hasn't even read it properly.  If he had, he'd note that the writer (apparently an LSE graduate - not exactly Michel Barnier), attempts to argue that the Commission is not an unelected bureaucracy, then in the next sentence admits that "technically" it is, er, an "unelected bureaucracy"!

I wonder what her class of degree was...

She confirms that the Commission proposes EU legislation.  She also acknowledges that each Commissioner is appointed. So, in fact, there's nothing in the article which disproves anything I've said.  It also helpfully confirms my previous point that the unelected Commission/civil service proposes legislation that is approved by the European Parliament, which is the wrong way round to the way we do it here in the UK.

I'd like to learn of any law passed in this country which was proposed by our civil service (Clue - You won't find one).

Try again, Dave

[wheels]

Isn't NATO run by unelected faceless bureaucracts? Isn't it time those who voted Leave started to call for our withdrawal from this organisation that could involve us in in a war without even asking us or do we have the usual leave double standards about this.

[Dave]

A bit of light reading for Melancholy 😏. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2019/02/19/is-the-european-union-governed-by-unelected-bureaucrats/

[wheels]

Can you explain why you want to take my and others citizenship away, why you what to remove my freedom of movement and for no measurable benefit.

[Melancholyflower]

Not sure why 'appointed' is in inverted commas - the commissioners are indeed appointed, by the democratically elected governments  of the 28 member states.  The EU Commission is the rough equivalent of the UK civil service. Each commissioner therefore, in UK terms, combines the duties of both secretary of state and 'permanent secretary' (the top civil servant in any department of state).  I hope that helps to clear up any confusion.

The confusion is entirely yours, Dave:

• Appointed was in inverted commas to highlight that the Executive who formulate and decide the vast majority of EU legislation is *unelected*, thus undemocratic. Whereas our Executive is *elected* - or democratic.

• The EU has its own civil service called, er, the European Civil Service.  So one can't compare the Commission - however "roughly" - to our civil service. I understand your confusion though, as EU civil service is often described as the commission. But it really isn't.

it is perfectly democratic, and a great deal more so than how these things work here in the UK, where no new law can be enacted until it has been approved by the indisputably undemocratic House of Lords!  Until we have done something about that, we in this country would do well to avoid lecturing others on Democracy! 

Your view of democracy is rather strange, then! 

But congratulations anyway, your topsy-turvy comparison in fact highlights the top-heavy undemocratic EU in its full glory:

• The elected EP votes through legislation already formulated by the unelected Commission.
• Our executive formulates legislation based on its majority in the elected Commons, then the unelected Lords votes to approve, review or amend bills already voted for by the commons.

As you must know, the Lords (since 1911 anyway) has no power to debunk bills, only to delay. And much of its function of reviewing and amending is actually very useful in fine-tuning legislation. It's never been elected for us to make any direct comparisons with any other sort of parliamentary democracy, so I don't know what your problem with it is, in terms of the UK system being any less democratic than it ever has been.  The Blair reforms only served to increase the politicisation of the Lords in the late 90s which has inevitably led to people saying it should now be fully elected. But this would change anything in practice unless they gave it more powers - which is not really what anyone needs. 

[marpleexile]

Ideally, we would do a trade deal with each European nation separately,

Why is that the ideal? Far more efficient to do one deal than to do 27. one set of rules, not 27, etc, etc.

but that isn't going to happen yet; not until Europe comes to its senses and dissolves the anti-European EU. For now, the best we can do is a deal with the EU where for our exports to them we must follow their rules

correct

and for imports from them they must follow our rules

Incorrect - they will continue to follow their rules and we will have to like it or lump it

and both sides agree not to change rules unnecessarily.

incorrect - they will continue to change their rules as best benifits them, and we will have to like it or lump it - we're leaving remember, we will no longer have a say

For the vast majority of trade, which is internal to the UK, our rules apply.

No, given that the vast majority of goods are imported, the rules of bodies which we're trading with will apply.

We also need to ensure that cross border trade only happens when necessary.

Why?

But also, have you not been paying attention - its very necessary and unless we want to abandon our way of life and go back to subsitence farming, it's not going to change.

There should be encouragement to use UK sources whenever possible (and of course each nation should do the same for its own industry).  Getting this done will not be easy,

Now that's quite some understatement. But also not what we were told/promised when "we" voted to leave.

but is essential. The real success for Brexit will be encouraging everyone else to leave. That must be our long term aim; restoring a sensible Europe.

 

As for our Commonwealth friends, let's see what happens. I think you will be surprised.

I'd be very surprised - New Zealand has a population of circa 5 milllion, ie twice as many people live in London than live in the entire country.

There are only a handful of commonwealth countries with whom trade deals might come close to replacing what we're losing from the EU - but you're truely demented if you genuinely believe that they will give us preferential deals for "old time's sake" (if anything our colonial history would make them more inclined to try and screw us as much as possible), at best we'll get an equitable deal (ie what we had with the EU) but as we've lost our biggest selling point (being a member of the EU) we won't really have a lot to offer.

Time will tell.

Indeed it will.

I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't see it.

[Dave]

will civilisation return and the EU be abolished? 

Would that be the ‘civilisation’ that prevailed before the forerunners of the EU were established after WWII? The civilisation that had what are now the member states of the EU at war with one another almost constantly for 2,000 years? No thanks Condate!

[Condate]

I'm afraid so.   After the referendum three years ago, we Remainers were repeatedly told 'you lost - get over it', but we knew it was the wrong decision and as long as there was a chance of it being reversed we fought on.  Now it's different - we will leave in a months time, so that issue is settled for good.   The only question is, on what terms, when the brief transition period is over at the end of next year.  That remains a huge unresolved issue, so there is still everything to play for.

What there still is to be decided is the future of Europe. Will the disaster of the EU be perpetuated, or will civilisation return and the EU be abolished? The UK has a part to play in that. Brexit will not be complete until Europe is restored and the EU consigned to history alongside other failed attempts at destroying Europe.

[Condate]

Besides, the trade they can offer is still puny compared to what's on our doorstep.  The best trade deal we can do for this country is the one we can do with the EU. 

Ideally, we would do a trade deal with each European nation separately, but that isn't going to happen yet; not until Europe comes to its senses and dissolves the anti-European EU. For now, the best we can do is a deal with the EU where for our exports to them we must follow their rules and for imports from them they must follow our rules and both sides agree not to change rules unnecessarily. For the vast majority of trade, which is internal to the UK, our rules apply. We also need to ensure that cross border trade only happens when necessary. There should be encouragement to use UK sources whenever possible (and of course each nation should do the same for its own industry).  Getting this done will not be easy, but is essential. The real success for Brexit will be encouraging everyone else to leave. That must be our long term aim; restoring a sensible Europe.

As for our Commonwealth friends, let's see what happens. I think you will be surprised. Time will tell.