News0 min ago
The Effects Of Brexit
54 Answers
clearly whatever is decided in the next few years will proportionately affect the young more than other age groups. clearly they should be consulted.
but is including the opinions of people down to the age of seven a sensible thing to be doing?
https:/
but is including the opinions of people down to the age of seven a sensible thing to be doing?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Spicey
But they love small government even more. Then its only spending millions rather than billions. And maybe, just maybe, like Trump, like Putin and some others, you can become the government....
The you donlt even need to spend the millions on lobbying.
You can just remove all the legislation that prevents you raping the planet to make more money. You can remove laws about transparency. You can put in laws that allow censorship and start controlling the flow of information.
Just like Putin has done and Xi has done and Trump is trying to do.
But they love small government even more. Then its only spending millions rather than billions. And maybe, just maybe, like Trump, like Putin and some others, you can become the government....
The you donlt even need to spend the millions on lobbying.
You can just remove all the legislation that prevents you raping the planet to make more money. You can remove laws about transparency. You can put in laws that allow censorship and start controlling the flow of information.
Just like Putin has done and Xi has done and Trump is trying to do.
“Leaving the EU risks much of that [auto and chemical] trade.”
Why? We already comply with EU standards in those areas and provided it suits us we will continue to do so. Bear in mind that trade is bilateral and it obviously suits our current trading partners to conduct the said trade with us and not any other EU countries. Why should they want to change?
“ The only thing we appear to be getting in exchange are vague, unfulfilled promised that the Uk will be able to negotiate better deals elsewhere than the EU can negotiate.”
I don’t think anyone has made any promises (vague or otherwise). However the EU is necessarily not very good at conducting trading agreements in a timely fashion. The main reason is that it has to accommodate the needs of 28 very disparate nations (each of whom have to be consulted every time a new clause is proposed). It also has to avoid compromising its ideological mantra which is aimed at creating a single European Federal state. This gives individual member nations no discretion to operate a different, more suitable version of the deal. What has been suggested is that the UK can conduct its affairs in a more timely fashion with the need to consider only its own requirements.
“I see it more as a gradual process whereby the rights of workers gained since the start of the last century are steadily reversed to the point where we end up with a Dickensian split between the wealthy and the impoverished.”
Once again, why? Most of those rights were gained outside the EU. The EU is not the only champion of workers’ rights in Europe. In essence you are saying that you trust the protection of your rights more to a bunch of unelected foreign civil servants (with an agenda of their own) than you do to the UK’s elected government.
I think the differences between us boil down to a matter of philosophy. I trust a UK government (which the electorate reviews every five years) to act in the best interests of the nation as a whole. You’d prefer to trust a mainly foreign unelected body who cannot be reviewed or dismissed to do the same.
Why? We already comply with EU standards in those areas and provided it suits us we will continue to do so. Bear in mind that trade is bilateral and it obviously suits our current trading partners to conduct the said trade with us and not any other EU countries. Why should they want to change?
“ The only thing we appear to be getting in exchange are vague, unfulfilled promised that the Uk will be able to negotiate better deals elsewhere than the EU can negotiate.”
I don’t think anyone has made any promises (vague or otherwise). However the EU is necessarily not very good at conducting trading agreements in a timely fashion. The main reason is that it has to accommodate the needs of 28 very disparate nations (each of whom have to be consulted every time a new clause is proposed). It also has to avoid compromising its ideological mantra which is aimed at creating a single European Federal state. This gives individual member nations no discretion to operate a different, more suitable version of the deal. What has been suggested is that the UK can conduct its affairs in a more timely fashion with the need to consider only its own requirements.
“I see it more as a gradual process whereby the rights of workers gained since the start of the last century are steadily reversed to the point where we end up with a Dickensian split between the wealthy and the impoverished.”
Once again, why? Most of those rights were gained outside the EU. The EU is not the only champion of workers’ rights in Europe. In essence you are saying that you trust the protection of your rights more to a bunch of unelected foreign civil servants (with an agenda of their own) than you do to the UK’s elected government.
I think the differences between us boil down to a matter of philosophy. I trust a UK government (which the electorate reviews every five years) to act in the best interests of the nation as a whole. You’d prefer to trust a mainly foreign unelected body who cannot be reviewed or dismissed to do the same.
Hi NJ
Hmm, now your prejudices are beginning to show.
“I think the differences between us boil down to a matter of philosophy. I trust a UK government (which the electorate reviews every five years) to act in the best interests of the nation as a whole. You’d prefer to trust a mainly foreign unelected body who cannot be reviewed or dismissed to do the same. “
No, No and a thousand times no!
The Westminster parliament must always have sovereignty over our laws. And it does whether we are inside the EU or the customs Union. We retain sovereignty over taxation, over spending budgets for defence, education welfare and so on. The EU has no interest in these things and should not.
Suggesting that I or anyone else wants control of these things to be based anywhere but Westminster (or Edinburgh or Cardiff or the other devolved assemblies) is mischievious at best.
Furthermore, successive British governments have chosen not to implement options available under EU laws to penalise or refuse welfare benefits to non-British nationals who do not have work, or are unable to support themselves after three months.
Where I want to be part of the EU is in terms of business and trade networks and consumer protection. A few small examples:
* Roaming charges on mobile phones were a rip-off until the EU stepped in and forced mobile network operators to slash them.
* Instead of beaches being littered with condoms and excrement, the EU Blue Flag beach scheme has encouraged local councils to clean them up.
* Regulation of chemicals has moved from “use anything unless it’s proven to be dangerous” to “Prove it’s safe before you may use it” under the EU’s REACH legislation
* Consumer protection means that rules in the UK are similar whether one shops in Greece or Germany. All ingredients in food products must be listed, and any content of allergens such as peanuts must be marked.
* The EU has removed the excessive charges that airlines could charge within Europe, bringing down the costs of flights significantly.
You may say that the UK government could have done these things, but the fact is, they did not and in some cases fought these rules. In many cases, it required agreement across the EU.
Hmm, now your prejudices are beginning to show.
“I think the differences between us boil down to a matter of philosophy. I trust a UK government (which the electorate reviews every five years) to act in the best interests of the nation as a whole. You’d prefer to trust a mainly foreign unelected body who cannot be reviewed or dismissed to do the same. “
No, No and a thousand times no!
The Westminster parliament must always have sovereignty over our laws. And it does whether we are inside the EU or the customs Union. We retain sovereignty over taxation, over spending budgets for defence, education welfare and so on. The EU has no interest in these things and should not.
Suggesting that I or anyone else wants control of these things to be based anywhere but Westminster (or Edinburgh or Cardiff or the other devolved assemblies) is mischievious at best.
Furthermore, successive British governments have chosen not to implement options available under EU laws to penalise or refuse welfare benefits to non-British nationals who do not have work, or are unable to support themselves after three months.
Where I want to be part of the EU is in terms of business and trade networks and consumer protection. A few small examples:
* Roaming charges on mobile phones were a rip-off until the EU stepped in and forced mobile network operators to slash them.
* Instead of beaches being littered with condoms and excrement, the EU Blue Flag beach scheme has encouraged local councils to clean them up.
* Regulation of chemicals has moved from “use anything unless it’s proven to be dangerous” to “Prove it’s safe before you may use it” under the EU’s REACH legislation
* Consumer protection means that rules in the UK are similar whether one shops in Greece or Germany. All ingredients in food products must be listed, and any content of allergens such as peanuts must be marked.
* The EU has removed the excessive charges that airlines could charge within Europe, bringing down the costs of flights significantly.
You may say that the UK government could have done these things, but the fact is, they did not and in some cases fought these rules. In many cases, it required agreement across the EU.
“The Westminster parliament must always have sovereignty over our laws. And it does whether we are inside the EU or the customs Union.”
Er…put plainly and simply it doesn’t. The Lisbon Treaty included the following declaration:
“17. Declaration concerning primacy
The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.”
There is nothing remotely ambiguous about that declaration. Where there is a dispute between UK law and EU law, the latter takes primacy. Plain and simple. It is true that EU directives must be assimilated into UK law before they can be applied in the UK. However, if the UK Parliament refuses to absorb a particular EU directive into national law and the UK continues to ignore the EU’s requirements, it will be brought before the ECJ. As can be seen from the above, EU law retains primacy and the court will find against the UK. Some countries have already adopted this principle in their own Constitutions. The Constitution of Ireland, for example, includes this:
"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities...."
“We retain sovereignty over taxation, over spending budgets for defence, education welfare and so on. The EU has no interest in these things…”
You left out one word. The EU CURRENTLY has (or has not yet demonstrated) any interest in these things. But the EU operates salami-fashion. It had no interest in many things years ago. Bit by bit it has shown an interest and has taken control over them. It is already showing signs of developing a common defence policy (where budgets will almost certainly be assumed by Brussels); it operates a quasi-diplomatic service where it seeks to speak on foreign affairs for its members. It is also talking of "harmonising" taxation across the bloc. The rest of the things you mention will slowly but surely follow.
There is no doubt that some of the measures you mention the EU has introduced by the EU are worthy. But they should be matters for national governments to introduce if they see fit. If you believe that being able to make a cheap phone call or obtain a cheap flight is worth surrendering your Parliament’s sovereignty to an unelected foreign body (which Lisbon surely does) then that’s your prerogative.
Three of the major EU members were granted a referendum on the ill-fated Constitution of Europe. It was rejected by France and the Netherlands. Consequently seven or eight other countries abandoned their plans to hold a plebiscite. The Constitution was re-titled the “Lisbon Treaty” and it contained virtually all the provisions of the Constitution. Only Ireland was afforded a referendum on it and even that most Europhile of members had to have two goes, having voted the wrong way first time round. That is how the EU works. If you’re happy with it, good luck. Fortunately 17m people in the UK are not. :-)
Er…put plainly and simply it doesn’t. The Lisbon Treaty included the following declaration:
“17. Declaration concerning primacy
The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.”
There is nothing remotely ambiguous about that declaration. Where there is a dispute between UK law and EU law, the latter takes primacy. Plain and simple. It is true that EU directives must be assimilated into UK law before they can be applied in the UK. However, if the UK Parliament refuses to absorb a particular EU directive into national law and the UK continues to ignore the EU’s requirements, it will be brought before the ECJ. As can be seen from the above, EU law retains primacy and the court will find against the UK. Some countries have already adopted this principle in their own Constitutions. The Constitution of Ireland, for example, includes this:
"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities...."
“We retain sovereignty over taxation, over spending budgets for defence, education welfare and so on. The EU has no interest in these things…”
You left out one word. The EU CURRENTLY has (or has not yet demonstrated) any interest in these things. But the EU operates salami-fashion. It had no interest in many things years ago. Bit by bit it has shown an interest and has taken control over them. It is already showing signs of developing a common defence policy (where budgets will almost certainly be assumed by Brussels); it operates a quasi-diplomatic service where it seeks to speak on foreign affairs for its members. It is also talking of "harmonising" taxation across the bloc. The rest of the things you mention will slowly but surely follow.
There is no doubt that some of the measures you mention the EU has introduced by the EU are worthy. But they should be matters for national governments to introduce if they see fit. If you believe that being able to make a cheap phone call or obtain a cheap flight is worth surrendering your Parliament’s sovereignty to an unelected foreign body (which Lisbon surely does) then that’s your prerogative.
Three of the major EU members were granted a referendum on the ill-fated Constitution of Europe. It was rejected by France and the Netherlands. Consequently seven or eight other countries abandoned their plans to hold a plebiscite. The Constitution was re-titled the “Lisbon Treaty” and it contained virtually all the provisions of the Constitution. Only Ireland was afforded a referendum on it and even that most Europhile of members had to have two goes, having voted the wrong way first time round. That is how the EU works. If you’re happy with it, good luck. Fortunately 17m people in the UK are not. :-)
Hmm
Thank you for explaining that. I now have a better idea of the justification behind the arguments over sovereignty. I’ve only heard fanatical shouting before.
It appears then that we are left with a choice between remaining part of a larger union that has proved itself largely benign. Or leaving, to be being governed (either directly or by proxy) by the billionaires who have shown themselves to be anything but benign.
Hobsons choice.
On the leave side, there is the fear that the EU will grab more and more power for itself, within the constitutional and legal arrangements that are requirements of membership and a belief that the UK government is the only force that can resist.
On the remain side, there is the fear that corporates and billionaires will drive legislation in the direction they want, to the detriment of the people and a belief that the only solution is larger government.
As the man from Cambridge Analytica said this evening, never argue on the facts – it’s all about emotions.
So it boils down to who are people most scared of: The EU or the corporates.
Since both of these are unknowns, the debate is intractable. Each side asserts that the other does not understand, because at heart, each side is scared half to death of the imagined consequences of the other side’s position.
Yet in the end, we will all lose, unless we are in the billionaire class. Because ultimately, the corporates can overcome even the largest governments through control of the media and influence on social networks.
Welcome to the modern world.
Well, NJ, thank you once more for that clarity. I hope I’ve been able to help you and others have at least a small glimpse of the remain position.
I’ve no doubt that you and the other pro-leave supporters will continue to think me and other pro-remain supporters misguided.
If I can find anything positive to say about this whole sorry mess, it is that….
Nope. Nothing.
Thank you for explaining that. I now have a better idea of the justification behind the arguments over sovereignty. I’ve only heard fanatical shouting before.
It appears then that we are left with a choice between remaining part of a larger union that has proved itself largely benign. Or leaving, to be being governed (either directly or by proxy) by the billionaires who have shown themselves to be anything but benign.
Hobsons choice.
On the leave side, there is the fear that the EU will grab more and more power for itself, within the constitutional and legal arrangements that are requirements of membership and a belief that the UK government is the only force that can resist.
On the remain side, there is the fear that corporates and billionaires will drive legislation in the direction they want, to the detriment of the people and a belief that the only solution is larger government.
As the man from Cambridge Analytica said this evening, never argue on the facts – it’s all about emotions.
So it boils down to who are people most scared of: The EU or the corporates.
Since both of these are unknowns, the debate is intractable. Each side asserts that the other does not understand, because at heart, each side is scared half to death of the imagined consequences of the other side’s position.
Yet in the end, we will all lose, unless we are in the billionaire class. Because ultimately, the corporates can overcome even the largest governments through control of the media and influence on social networks.
Welcome to the modern world.
Well, NJ, thank you once more for that clarity. I hope I’ve been able to help you and others have at least a small glimpse of the remain position.
I’ve no doubt that you and the other pro-leave supporters will continue to think me and other pro-remain supporters misguided.
If I can find anything positive to say about this whole sorry mess, it is that….
Nope. Nothing.
NJ always gives a measured account of the facts as against others who repeat project fear lies as somehow being more true or more worthy.
You purport to be a business man Kidas (If I am remembering the right post) but I suspect you are a school boy trying his hand at debate club.
Where it is true that Remainers look to the EU as the font off all that is good and Brexiters look on self determination and sovereignty as the greater good and of course we all do tend to read, quote and believe only that which affirms our views. There does however come a point when a Remainer contradicts themselves with the belief they are looking to sovereignty, self determination and Westminster as the highest law in the land but still want to be shackled to the EU. It simply isn't possible.
You purport to be a business man Kidas (If I am remembering the right post) but I suspect you are a school boy trying his hand at debate club.
Where it is true that Remainers look to the EU as the font off all that is good and Brexiters look on self determination and sovereignty as the greater good and of course we all do tend to read, quote and believe only that which affirms our views. There does however come a point when a Remainer contradicts themselves with the belief they are looking to sovereignty, self determination and Westminster as the highest law in the land but still want to be shackled to the EU. It simply isn't possible.
Thanks for that, Vulcan.
It was pleasing to have a civilised exchange with Kidas in contrast to some of the unpleasantness that often accompanies such debates. I always try to keep my arguments firm but civil (unless I encounter nastiness, when I can give as good as I get).
However, this thread demonstrates to me that there are considerable (shall I be kind and say) misunderstandings that abound with many people (on both sides) of the Brexit argument. Whatever Kidas's credentials it is clear that he had a fundamental misunderstanding of the primacy of EU law afforded by the Lisbon Treaty. He is correct to say that the EU has "no interest" in certain fields of policy of its member states - at the moment. In the 1970s it had no interest in controlling national currencies. But a generation later the continent is dominated by a single currency which has proved to be an abject failure and has condemned vast swathes of southern Europe to unending penury.
Misunderstandings such as these cannot - or should not - go uncorrected.
It was pleasing to have a civilised exchange with Kidas in contrast to some of the unpleasantness that often accompanies such debates. I always try to keep my arguments firm but civil (unless I encounter nastiness, when I can give as good as I get).
However, this thread demonstrates to me that there are considerable (shall I be kind and say) misunderstandings that abound with many people (on both sides) of the Brexit argument. Whatever Kidas's credentials it is clear that he had a fundamental misunderstanding of the primacy of EU law afforded by the Lisbon Treaty. He is correct to say that the EU has "no interest" in certain fields of policy of its member states - at the moment. In the 1970s it had no interest in controlling national currencies. But a generation later the continent is dominated by a single currency which has proved to be an abject failure and has condemned vast swathes of southern Europe to unending penury.
Misunderstandings such as these cannot - or should not - go uncorrected.
-- answer removed --
