BREXIT price rises

Tromking

Generali wrote: »

.
The Commission can't simply unilaterally pass laws into power, if the EP fails to pass the legislation by a simple majority then the legislation fails and is not passed into law.

That ignores the real democratic deficit of a group of unelected appointees producing these laws in the first place.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

That ignores the real democratic deficit of a group of unelected appointees producing these laws in the first place.

Not that it really matters any more but the European Commission proposes a piece of legislation. The Parliament then discusses it and chucks out the bits it doesn't like, all of it if necessary, and changes the bits it likes a bit.

How do you think this is substantially different from how Westminster works? Do you think that Mrs May sits down with the relevant minister and drafts a Bill?

The reality is that the civil service drafts a bill and it is then debated by Parliament and modified through the committee system in basically the same way that every democratic Government works. The law is too technical in most respects for MPs to be able to deal with.

This, of course, shows a big part of the reason why Remain lost.

"It's Undemocratic. BOOOOO. Boooo. Booo hsssss."
That's a simple sell.

"Well there is a process. First x happens, then there's a discussion. Ah yes well that's unless y happens in which case we deal with it slightly differently....oh look, a butterfly".
That's the reality of how democracy works but nobody cares.

Back in the day people used to accept that the system was working for them for the most part. They didn't care what the system was but they realised that it was a mechanism for translating policy into action. Now people are supposedly sophisticated. They still can't be bothered to understand the process but are happy to believe that it is working against them.

That's the change and that's what has enable Brexit to happen. Nobody understands how the EU works but they are happy to accept that it's working against them.

Tromking

Thanks Generali.
You neatly sum up the entire EU debate for a lot of us.
This was a choice for me at least between a largely benign EU that in essence was largely unaccountable but kind of worked and the re-establishment of a system of Government that has a clear line of accountability from me at the ballot box to our lawmakers in a national Parliament. It's not without fault of course, the HoL is an anachronism and if it weren't just a revisory chamber it would have been binned decades ago.
When Theresa May instructs her civil servants to draft new laws, she usually does so on the strength of a manifesto that's been voted on by the people. Can that be said of the EU commissioners?

mwpt

Tromking wrote: »

Thanks Generali.
You neatly sum up the entire EU debate for a lot of us.
This was a choice for me at least between a largely benign EU that in essence was largely unaccountable but kind of worked and the re-establishment of a system of Government that has a clear line of accountability from me at the ballot box to our lawmakers in a national Parliament. It's not without fault of course, the HoL is an anachronism and if it weren't just a revisory chamber it would have been binned decades ago.
When Theresa May instructs her civil servants to draft new laws, she usually does so on the strength of a manifesto that's been voted on by the people. Can that be said of the EU commissioners?

Normally I try not to let emotions cloud judgement. I don't always succeed. But putting this in context, which laws in particular did you regularly notice that were EU made which imposed on unduly on your life? I mean, before the papers started telling us all how to think about the EU?

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

When Theresa May instructs her civil servants to draft new laws, she usually does so on the strength of a manifesto that's been voted on by the people. Can that be said of the EU commissioners?

Indirectly I think, yes.

You vote for the Jill Smith QC. She is part of the governing party of the UK that puts forward the representative Jane Jones to be Britain's EU Commissioner.

Jill realises that a farmer, Davo McDave, in her constituency has a problem with the rules governing milking sheep that put his business at risk. She goes to the local council that informs her that they don't make this set of rules so Jill takes Davo's concerns to the MAF in the UK. "Ah no, this is an EU rule", she is told so she goes to see Jane.

Jane then takes the complaint to the Commission and, possibly, ultimately to the Parliament to decide whether the rules should be changed.

Neither Jill nor Jane can change the rules unilaterally and rightly so. Jill and Jane can only work within their systems to change things with the agreement of others. Sometimes the rules can be changed by the local council, sometimes by the British Parliament, sometimes by the European Parliament and sometimes by the Council of Ministers who trump the whole lot of them. In the EU, and in the UK post-EU, it depends where the competence lies.

Scotland or the EU can't call a referendum because the competence to call referenda lies with the UK Government in the UK. Scottish people or French people might not like that but it's tough, that's how governance works. Everything is decided at the level that has been agreed previously.

Tromking

mwpt wrote: »

Normally I try not to let emotions cloud judgement. I don't always succeed. But putting this in context, which laws in particular did you regularly notice that were EU made which imposed on unduly on your life? I mean, before the papers started telling us all how to think about the EU?

That would be none.

Tromking

Generali wrote: »

Indirectly I think, yes.

You vote for the Jill Smith QC. She is part of the governing party of the UK that puts forward the representative Jane Jones to be Britain's EU Commissioner.

Jill realises that a farmer, Davo McDave, in her constituency has a problem with the rules governing milking sheep that put his business at risk. She goes to the local council that informs her that they don't make this set of rules so Jill takes Davo's concerns to the MAF in the UK. "Ah no, this is an EU rule", she is told so she goes to see Jane.

Jane then takes the complaint to the Commission and, possibly, ultimately to the Parliament to decide whether the rules should be changed.

Neither Jill nor Jane can change the rules unilaterally and rightly so. Jill and Jane can only work within their systems to change things with the agreement of others. Sometimes the rules can be changed by the local council, sometimes by the British Parliament, sometimes by the European Parliament and sometimes by the Council of Ministers who trump the whole lot of them. In the EU, and in the UK post-EU, it depends where the competence lies.

Scotland or the EU can't call a referendum because the competence to call referenda lies with the UK Government in the UK. Scottish people or French people might not like that but it's tough, that's how governance works. Everything is decided at the level that has been agreed previously.

Jill Smith QC sounds great, trouble is she's gone a bit 'native' during her time in Brussels (hypothetically) how do I get rid?

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

Jill Smith QC sounds great, trouble is she's gone a bit 'native' during her time in Brussels (hypothetically) how do I get rid?

In the same way you get rid of the Government of the UK or your local council, you either put pressure on your existing representatives to behave in a way that is more to your liking or you vote differently and hope to persuade others to do the same. Or, more likely, moan about it down the pub and find a bunch of people that have a vague feeling of being put upon that they CBA to do anything about until one day they get a once in a generation chance to vote to kick over the statues.

That's where the fun begins of course.

Did you try to influence the UK's place in the EU in any way at all over the last 40 years? If so it would be great if you could share.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Normally I try not to let emotions cloud judgement. I don't always succeed. But putting this in context, which laws in particular did you regularly notice that were EU made which imposed on unduly on your life? I mean, before the papers started telling us all how to think about the EU?

Some EU laws regulations that a reasonable might (even without the pernicious effect of pro EU newspapers and media outlets propaganda)

-the ability to determine sales taxes on toilet paper, thermal insulation products, social essential or desirable goods and services.

-the ability to restrict EU doctors /nurses working the the UK who have inadequate language knowledge

-the ability to restrict EU criminals from entering the UK

-the ability to kick out EU criminals from the UK

- the ability to manage demand for houses in the London/SE so it is possible for young people to live in family sized houses

-the ability of public bodies to give purchasing preference to small local companies.

-the extra costs of the mandatory EU import duties

-the extra costs of the mandatory EU non tariff barriers

- the massive costs of the extra infrastructure we need to build to cater for the millions of migrants

- the overcrowding, delays extra cost of the massive infrastructure overcrowding.

- the long term impact of the massive disconnect between the people and government due to the knowledge that the 'rules' are due to the EU and so can't be changed in any reasonable timescale.

- the massive hidden costs we pay due to the regulation on businesses

-the huge problems we were building up with a large trade deficit : fortunately the brexit vote has led to the value of the pound falling so this should help the inevitable correction.

You don't care about the increasing democratic deficit because you read too much europhile propaganda. Wake up and enjoy life in the sun

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Blah

:rotfl::T:rotfl:

Congratulations. The European Court of Human Rights and the EU have no connection and leaving the EU doesn't stop the European Court of Human Rights having primacy over UK law as has been the case since Mr Blair gave the European Court of Human Rights primacy over some UK laws.

An acquaintance of my mother voted leave because that way she could buy petrol in gallons. If you voted leave so you could get rid of the European Court of Human Rights then you are barking up the same street. Congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory.