Voting for Brexit

[Dave]

In the EU, the executive is the Commission which as you must know, is unelected.  Its commissioners are "appointed".

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.

  This has nothing to do with accountability.

The EU Commission is accountable to the European Parliament.

So in practice, most EU law has already been decided by unelected representatives before the Parliament votes on it.  the Parliament merely votes on whether to enact the Commission's proposals.

So to take a comparable example from the way the process works here in the UK, would Melancholy say that new laws in this country are decided by individual ministers and their civil servants before Parliament 'merely' votes on them? No, I thought not!

I'll leave you to tell me just how "democratic" that actually is.

Happy to enlighten you, Melancholy: 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! 

This is a circular discussion and it will keep going round in circles forever.

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. 

[andrewbowden]

Message Deleted.  Cos sod it.  This is a circular discussion and it will keep going round in circles forever.  And I can't live my life with this going round in circles forever.

[andrewbowden]

The expression was "Former Dominions".

I notice you don't even bother replying to the rest of my comment.  Why doesn't this surprise me?

If you think Australia is coming to our rescue, you are going to be very disappointed.

[Condate]

By the way, calling them "dominions" might not go down well with them...  It's a bit, you know, patronising...

The expression was "Former Dominions".

[andrewbowden]

Who wants a trade deal with the US? Certainly not the vast majority of the supporters of Brexit. A deal with the former Dominions would be welcome and with a great many other places, but not with the US. The prime minister may think differently, but if he does, he does not represent the people who voted to leave the EU.

Who wants a trade deal with the US?  Well our democratically elected government.  That's why they are trying to get one.

Who wants a trade deal with "the dominions"?  Brexiters who live in the past and think the commonwealth will save all. 

But they won't.  India will do us a trade deal at the cost of allowing visa free access to this country for its citizens.  That's their price.  They will not back down.  Their price is generally considered unacceptable to many in the UK.

new Zealand will do a deal cos they want to flood the UK with their lamb thus destroying British sheep farmers.  That's their price.

Australia frankly don't care. They are more interested in pursuing more local markets.  Cos that's the thing with global trade.  It's global but actually the most important trade is the trade on your doorstep, not the trade thousands of miles away.

Always, always, ALWAYS remember trade deals run two ways.   Many  Brexiters cry "the Commonwealth!" in their desire to get away from the EU but trade deals don't happen out of the good of a country's heart.  No one in Canada is going "let's do a trade deal to help out the UK.". No.  They are going "What can we get out of the UK that benefits us?".  And ask yourself why India and Australia would prioritise us over trade deals with the far bigger EU?  Hint: they won't. 

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. 

By the way, calling them "dominions" might not go down well with them...  It's a bit, you know, patronising...

[andrewbowden]

Guess your party lost .

Yep.  And I have long been resigned to that.  But until evidence comes along to the contrary, I will remain unconvinced that what is happening is a sensible move.

(I am willing to be proved wrong.  But still have yet to see any evidence - all these years in - that I made the wrong call.)

[Condate]

Looking forward to Brexit because of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef!  We will be forced to accept them in order to get a trade deal with America. 

Who wants a trade deal with the US? Certainly not the vast majority of the supporters of Brexit. A deal with the former Dominions would be welcome and with a great many other places, but not with the US. The prime minister may think differently, but if he does, he does not represent the people who voted to leave the EU.

[marpleexile]

I'll leave you to tell me just how "democratic" that actually is.

It's far from perfect, but probably more demonractic than the UK where 160K members of the conservative party (when we have a voting population of circa 46 million) get to decide who the prime minister is.

[amazon]

Looking forward to Brexit because of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef!  We will be forced to accept them in order to get a trade deal with America.  Will have absolutely no say in whether we want it or not, because we will have to accept it to get a trade deal with the US.  It will be great because we will Take Back Control.  And then be so desperate for a trade deal we will give that control to a foreign power.  And have absolutely no say.  But at least we will have a trade deal!

Also to look forward to: higher drugs prices, and the ability for US corporations to sue our government!  It's going to be awesome!

Oh how we will laugh at the unaccountable European Commission once US companies start taking our government to corporate tribunals in order to gain access to the NHS!  Those suckers still in Brussels, ha, we will laugh so hard at them!!!

Cos we is a global world power, not some tiny irrelevant tin pot country!

Guess your party lost .

[andrewbowden]

Looking forward to Brexit because of chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef!  We will be forced to accept them in order to get a trade deal with America.  Will have absolutely no say in whether we want it or not, because we will have to accept it to get a trade deal with the US.  It will be great because we will Take Back Control.  And then be so desperate for a trade deal we will give that control to a foreign power.  And have absolutely no say.  But at least we will have a trade deal!

Also to look forward to: higher drugs prices, and the ability for US corporations to sue our government!  It's going to be awesome!

Oh how we will laugh at the unaccountable European Commission once US companies start taking our government to corporate tribunals in order to gain access to the NHS!  Those suckers still in Brussels, ha, we will laugh so hard at them!!!

Cos we is a global world power, not some tiny irrelevant tin pot country!

[Condate]

The European Parliament is certainly more accountable and transparent than the British Government which only has the support of a minority of those who voted and only 27% of the electorate. The majority of the Hazel Grove constituency do not want Wragg and the majority of the British people do no want this Tory government.

The European  parliament (which is an abomination and should not exist) is not solely accountable to the UK electorate and that is only one of its problems.

I suspect (but I admit I can't prove) that a majority of the Hazel Grove electorate do not want any of the candidates we had to choose from. Personally, I voted for William Wragg, not because I wanted him as our MP, but because I definitely did not want Lisa Smart and didn't want Mr Wilson either. I would rather we did not have a (nominally) Conservative government (which I do not expect to be a great success), but then I don't want a Labour government (which would be a catastrophe) or a Lib Dem government (which would also be a disaster).  Mr Wragg and the current government are the least disliked option.

[wheels]

The European Parliament is certainly more accountable and transparent than the British Government which only has the support of a minority of those who voted and only 27% of the electorate. The majority of the Hazel Grove constituency do not want Wragg and the majority of the British people do no want this Tory government.

[Melancholyflower]

You mean like the European Parliament, which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the people of the U.K. and of the other 27 European member states?

When I say own our lawmaking completely, that is exactly what I mean.

Your parallel is false.

In the UK we know that the people we elect will form both the senior house of legislature and the decision-making executive. Quite simple and straightforward.

In the EU, the executive is the Commission which as you must know, is unelected.  Its commissioners are "appointed".  This has nothing to do with accountability. Yet it is the main body of opinion, proposals and influence within the EU and the Parliament merely votes on whether to enact the Commission's proposals.  So in practice, most EU law has already been decided by unelected representatives before the Parliament votes on it.

I'll leave you to tell me just how "democratic" that actually is.

[Dave]

I am simply saying we should have the *ability* to own our lawmaking completely, so that any law we pass is done through a Parliament which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the British people.

You mean like the European Parliament, which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the people of the U.K. and of the other 27 European member states?

But not for long! In a month’s time we will be out of the EU. And here’s another forecast: in due course, and in order to mitigate the damage to our economy and the impact of that on our jobs and standards of living, we will end up agreeing to comply with many EU regulations and directives relating to trade in both goods and services. Trouble is, those laws and regulations will be drawn up by a parliament in which we no longer have a vote. Doesn’t sound much like democracy, does it!

But hey, that’s OK, because it’s what we voted for 😏

[Melancholyflower]

OK Melancholy, here’s an example of a EU law - it came into force last January.  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_6853

This law has had the effect of preventing (or at least hampering) tax avoidance by international companies and the extremely wealthy people who own them.  Some of those people own newspapers, which why the Mail, Express, Times, Telegraph etc have been indoctrinating us all with relentless anti-EU propaganda for the past three years and more.

If we leave the EU this law will no longer apply in the U.K., and the billionaire tax dodgers will breathe again. Will that ‘make your life better?’  I don’t think so - unless you too are a billionaire tax dodger!

You're completely missing my point.  I didn't say that every single EU directive/law has been rubbish, indeed it would be unrealistic to do so for the many thousands of them. But even if just one of them was a bad law, then that's one too many.  I've listed examples elsewhere of how I think it has damaged the country.

I am simply saying we should have the *ability* to own our lawmaking completely, so that any law we pass is done through a Parliament which is directly elected by, and accountable to, the British people.  It's that simple.

As for your assertion of "relentless propaganda", presumably you are including the campaign and events since.

If we look at the actual facts, the referendum campaign was much more of split than you are portraying, including within newspaper groups. The Mail on Sunday and the Times wanted us to Remain, whereas Daily Mail and Sunday Times wanted Leave.  Likewise the Mirror and Guardian groups wanted Remain which you failed to mention.

Interesting you talking of "indoctrination"... at least newspapers are far more upfront about the causes they champion.   The BBC boasts that it is impartial on everything, but it is anything but. It was obliged by electoral law to be fair towards both sides *during* the campaign, but its clear bias towards Remain *since* the referendum has been obvious to those with half a brain. The most obvious example is Question Time / Any Questions which have hosted 60/40 Remainers/Leavers on its panels since the referendum result (according to IEA data) when the vote was 48/52.