Another new Brexit thread

[inbetween]

can you name a EU law that constrained us against our will?

This generally isn't the point, the point is that we can be constrained by them and our position in the EU parliament means invariably we will be outvoted. We are certainly outnumbered when it comes to setting direction.

The Labour fellas arguing on here don't like to tell you that half of Corbyn's manifesto last year was completely impossible to implement because much of it broke EU state aid rules.

This is why Corbyn and the socialists generally are against the EU. They see it as a bureaucratic representation of capitalism but this is often accepted as a necessary evil because of the large socio-democratic make up of the EU.

Because of the way it works, the Liberal Democrats had more power in the EU parliament than our own government.

I'm not arguing for or against EU membership, I voted to remain but I didn't vote to remain to keep bureaucracy, outside law making or any of that rubbish. I voted to remain simply out of keeping our economy alive.

I think many remainers will find themselves alone if they tread down the path of assuming what even remainers voted for because even we can be skeptics.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Ok. I'll take that as a 'no' from you mate.

They have worked out that calling laws regulations sidesteps awkward questions of legislative legitimacy I think. Certainly much of the discourse on here from both sides tends to imply that these regulations are seen as carrying the weight of law - the negotiations around market access, borders and custom union also seem to suggest this. I'm happy to ignore it all tbh, but the impression I get is that the EU want their regs to be taken rather seriously - almost as if they were laws.

 

[Vic]

Indeed. Now explain the European Communities Act 1972 which made EU laws and judges superior to British ones.

Passed by our sovereign Parliament. Repealed by our sovereign Parliament.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

This generally isn't the point, the point is that we can be constrained by them and our position in the EU parliament means invariably we will be outvoted. We are certainly outnumbered when it comes to setting direction.

The Labour fellas arguing on here don't like to tell you that half of Corbyn's manifesto last year was completely impossible to implement because much of it broke EU state aid rules.

This is why Corbyn and the socialists generally are against the EU. They see it as a bureaucratic representation of capitalism but this is often accepted as a necessary evil because of the large socio-democratic make up of the EU.

Because of the way it works, the Liberal Democrats had more power in the EU parliament than our own government.

I'm not arguing for or against EU membership, I voted to remain but I didn't vote to remain to keep bureaucracy, outside law making or any of that rubbish. I voted to remain simply out of keeping our economy alive.

our Governments messaging is the reason you think the Labour manifesto breached state aid rules.

We couldn't bail out British Steel because of state aid? but they sure found a way of renationalising the East Coast Line didn't they?

State aid is allowed under Eu rules when it allows for Economic Development ... which is why the Dutch Government are heavily involved in their rail Network as is ours when it comes to HS2. its also why the Italians could bail out their steel industry .

Tories tell you that they cant bail out an industry because thats their excuse for selling / privatising it.

 

[Saddleworth2]

This generally isn't the point, the point is that we can be constrained by them and our position in the EU parliament means invariably we will be outvoted. We are certainly outnumbered when it comes to setting direction.

The Labour fellas arguing on here don't like to tell you that half of Corbyn's manifesto last year was completely impossible to implement because much of it broke EU state aid rules.

This is why Corbyn and the socialists generally are against the EU. They see it as a bureaucratic representation of capitalism but this is often accepted as a necessary evil because of the large socio-democratic make up of the EU.

Because of the way it works, the Liberal Democrats had more power in the EU parliament than our own government.

I'm not arguing for or against EU membership, I voted to remain but I didn't vote to remain to keep bureaucracy, outside law making or any of that rubbish. I voted to remain simply out of keeping our economy alive.

I think many remainers will find themselves alone if they tread down the path of assuming what even remainers voted for because even we can be skeptics.

So that’s a far more eloquent no from you. Because in fact the U.K. only voted against and lost a very very small proportion of votes on new legislation. Which is why, when asked nobody can actually reference one.

 

[Metal Biker]

This generally isn't the point, the point is that we can be constrained by them and our position in the EU parliament means invariably we will be outvoted. We are certainly outnumbered when it comes to setting direction.

The Labour fellas arguing on here don't like to tell you that half of Corbyn's manifesto last year was completely impossible to implement because much of it broke EU state aid rules.

This is why Corbyn and the socialists generally are against the EU. They see it as a bureaucratic representation of capitalism but this is often accepted as a necessary evil because of the large socio-democratic make up of the EU.

Because of the way it works, the Liberal Democrats had more power in the EU parliament than our own government.

I'm not arguing for or against EU membership, I voted to remain but I didn't vote to remain to keep bureaucracy, outside law making or any of that rubbish. I voted to remain simply out of keeping our economy alive.

I think many remainers will find themselves alone if they tread down the path of assuming what even remainers voted for because even we can be skeptics.

No matter how many times it's explained.... ;)

 

[Vic]

They have worked out that calling laws regulations sidesteps awkward questions of legislative legitimacy I think. Certainly much of the discourse on here from both sides tends to imply that these regulations are seen as carrying the weight of law - the negotiations around market access, borders and custom union also seem to suggest this. I'm happy to ignore it all tbh, but the impression I get is that the EU want their regs to be taken rather seriously - almost as if they were laws.

That's a bit Pirates of the Caribbean. Not so much a code, more like guidelines.

Of course regs have the power of law, every single one of them authorised in a law passed by our sovereign Parliament.

We've had secondary legislation regs for a very long time. Did you really think they started with the EU?

 

[Metal Biker]

So that’s a far more eloquent no from you. Because in fact the U.K. only voted against and lost a very very small proportion of votes on new legislation. Which is why, when asked nobody can actually reference one.

Yes, but the trend was clearly showing that the more and more votes the UK voted against were increasing in number.

Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

This is counting votes in the EU Council of Ministers, which passes most EU laws jointly with the European Parliament.


But in recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes. Between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.


That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.

The EU was heading in a direction that the UK opposed and we found ourselves increasingly on the sidelines. European nations wanted these changes, the UK didn't and we found ourselves isolated through no fault of our own. Something we once agreed with and were happy to be a part of was quickly becoming something we didn't, the Lisbon Treaty being the first red flag.

It was clear that the Europe they wanted was different to the Europe we wanted to to continue to be a part of, if it meant accepting these new regulations, and we reached our breaking point. As someone who champions the reasons for Scottish separation, I find it puzzling you cannot see the comparisons between frustration between Westminster and Brussels.

We get to vote for our OWN MEP's but have no approval over who the German people/French people etc might elect, and generally speaking they are anti-sovereign in their mindset (in that they oppose the continuation of sovereign nations and wish for Europe to become Federal) This was no longer a secret either, now they were discussing this notion openly in the EuroParl.

How does it feel voting for SNP across the board in Scotland, only to discover that they have a small voice in a wider UK Parliament, where the Government in power does not contain a single representative that you chose to authorise decisions that could negatively impact your livelihood and make decisions you legitimately oppose? Some empathy there, surely?

 

[Vic]

our Governments messaging is the reason you think the Labour manifesto breached state aid rules.

We couldn't bail out British Steel because of state aid? but they sure found a way of renationalising the East Coast Line didn't they?

State aid is allowed under Eu rules when it allows for Economic Development ... which is why the Dutch Government are heavily involved in their rail Network as is ours when it comes to HS2. its also why the Italians could bail out their steel industry .

Tories tell you that they cant bail out an industry because thats their excuse for selling / privatising it.

The Dutch government are involved in our rail network. And the French. And the Italian. And the Germans (no state aid, making a profit running a lot of our buses as well).

 

[Vic]

No matter how many times it's explained.... ;)

..
It's still wrong.

 

[Vic]

Yes, but the trend was clearly showing that the more and more votes the UK voted against were increasing in number.



The EU was heading in a direction that the UK opposed and we found ourselves increasingly on the sidelines. European nations wanted these changes, the UK didn't and we found ourselves isolated through no fault of our own. Something we once agreed with and were happy to be a part of was quickly becoming something we didn't, the Lisbon Treaty being the first red flag.

It was clear that the Europe they wanted was different to the Europe we wanted to to continue to be a part of, if it meant accepting these new regulations, and we reached our breaking point. As someone who champions the reasons for Scottish separation, I find it puzzling you cannot see the comparisons between frustration between Westminster and Brussels.

We get to vote for our OWN MEP's but have no approval over who the German people/French people etc might elect, and generally speaking they are anti-sovereign in their mindset (in that they oppose the continuation of sovereign nations and wish for Europe to become Federal) This was no longer a secret either, now they were discussing this notion openly in the EuroParl.

How does it feel voting for SNP across the board in Scotland, only to discover that they have a small voice in a wider UK Parliament, where the Government in power does not contain a single representative that you chose to authorise decisions that could negatively impact your livelihood and make decisions you legitimately oppose? Some empathy there, surely?

Change our crap system then. Permanent rule by MPs not elected by a majority.

 

[west didsblue]

For those that keep banging on about sovereignty I presume the ultimate aim is to leave the WTO, ICAO, IATA, IMO, WHO, the UN and all its agencies, the Paris climate accord, IANA, IMF, NATO, OECD, World Bank and every single international organisation so we won’t need to follow all those pesky rules that are not set just by us, and that govern our interaction with the rest of the world. Then we can do anything we want. Is that the sovereignty that we want?

 

[Metal Biker]

For those that keep banging on about sovereignty I presume the ultimate aim is to leave the WTO, ICAO, IATA, IMO, WHO, the UN and all its agencies, the Paris climate accord, IANA, IMF, NATO, OECD, World Bank and every single international organisation so we won’t need to follow all those pesky rules that are not set just by us, and that govern our interaction with the rest of the world. Then we can do anything we want. Is that the sovereignty that we want?

Yep. Because, it'll be OUR Government that WE elected, that agreed to implement those 'regulations'.

You should be all over it! Think of all the new rules you can tell us about!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Yep. Because, it'll be OUR Government that WE elected, that agreed to implement those 'regulations'.

You should be all over it! Think of all the new rules you can tell us about!

Just a reminder that the current government that WE elected are in power because less than 30% of the population voted for them

 

[Metal Biker]

Just a reminder that the current government that WE elected are in power because less than 30% of the population voted for them

View attachment 6351

You expect babies and children to vote now?

Well okay then. Because that says 43.6% of the voting population voted for the Government we have, you know ones who are eligible, and actually took the time to vote? Those who don't vote aren't backing ANY of the candidates. (Bigger issue is on voter apathy, but again with you it's "the ToRiEs!!")

But you're forgetting the most fundamental aspect; WE will have voted on it.

 

[Ban-jani]

I bet if you asked 100 people what more sovereignty meant to them, nearly all of them either wouldn’t have a clue or would go on about stuff that’s nothing to do with sovereignty.

Maybe so but I know what it means.

 

[Ban-jani]

We are sovereign. You are either sovereign or you are not. There are no degrees of sovereignty. It is an absolute.

I didn’t ask if we were, I asked what was meant by an “outdated view”.

 

[Ban-jani]

Yeah coz we were really struggling as members of the EU ! Are Germany France Italy etc sovereign nations as members ? I think they are.

I voted remain mate.

I just asked what he meant by an “outdated view of sovereignty”

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Well okay then. Because that says 43.6% of the voting population voted for the Government we have

You’re not doing a great job of selling it tbh.

 

[Ban-jani]

You can't have more sovereignty. Either you're a sovereign nation or you're not. What's outdated is the idea that alliances (whether military, economic, or even shared governance) take away sovereignty. Actually that may be a newfangled idea of sovereignty - that joining with others is somehow bad.

(Sorry, just seen Bob's similar response. No collusion, no WhatsApp, just great minds...)

I wouldn’t call yourself and Bob that but thanks for clarifying ;-)

I have always thought we were sovereign but the concerns for some were that even further integration will result in us not being.