BREXIT price rises

BobQ

ash28 wrote: »

The EP can propose legislation through the Commission, the EP can't initiate legislation on its own, only the Commission has legislative initiative, except for common foreign and security policy, where it lies.........

.

So if the EP asks the Commission and it refuses to initiate or the Council insructs the Commission and it refuses to initiate, what happens to these political appointees?

How many EU laws are genuinely started by the Commission?

setmefree2

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe we need a thread to see who can name the most silly reason for voting for Brexit?

1993 Jun 7 Margaret Thatcher

My Lords, when I came to this House it was somehow under the impression that things were less lively here, much more courteous and much less robust. I find that it is not so and I am delighted. First, perhaps I may make one or two remarks about what my noble friend the [Lord Wakeham ] Lord Privy Seal said. He referred very much to the importance of trade and said that Europe is an excellent export market for us. We are of course an even better import market for the rest of Europe. We have had a great deficit on trade ever since we entered.
The answer is not in the Maastricht Treaty, but for Europe to negotiate firmly and quickly under the GATT arrangements, which negotiations Europe is at present holding up. It is stopping the very thing that we need. Perhaps I may also say this to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: will he do me the honour of reading through the speech to the end? He will see that I said that perhaps Lord Attlee was right, that there was a place for a referendum when that is the only way of putting an important single constitutional issue to the people. Otherwise, having two main parties, we vote on a general manifesto, and there is no way of putting an important constitutional issue to the people, except by a referendum. That is why we have had referenda on Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They were constitutional issues.

I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy . Let me make it quite clear that we are now debating whether we go further with the Maastricht Treaty. I agree with his fundamental underlying assumption; namely, that it is that treaty which takes us over the top to a new political entity, a European union, which we have never had before. Before that, we had never gone that way but had kept quite a bit of sovereignty, and it is the last lot that we are in danger of losing.

I believe very much, with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy , that it does not matter where we sit in this House; it does not matter where we work in the country or what our party politics are; it is our country's future that is at stake. It is our parliamentary institutions. It is our court of law. We called ourselves "free people" long before we had a universal vote in this country because we had the most excellent rule of law—and that matters to us very much.

The second view has always been towards an integrated European union. That is why the phrase an "ever closer union" was put in the Treaty of Rome—not clothed with meaning. We always had the assurance to which my noble friend referred. There was always an assurance that we would keep our identity and our veto but gradually, little by little, it went and everything came in stages. Whatever you said in the Community, it had to be the first stage of something which led to one destination, a European union. You did not have any other alternatives. You were either on a slow train or a fast train, but you were on the train to that destination—and if you do not want to go to that destination, it does not matter at what speed you go. You do not want to be on it at all. I suggest that we do not want to go any further on that train.

Perhaps your Lordships will look back to 1972 when we went in and at the assurances and the referendum assurances. They are all there for everyone to see. As I expected, the Single European Act has been much mentioned already. Right in the heart of the Treaty of Rome is the need to have a common market. That was how we were going to get our prosperity up; that was how we were going to have more jobs; that was how we were going to compete the world over because we had a large enough market to compete with the American market and a large enough market ultimately to compete with the Far East.
So, yes, we wanted a common or single market but it was a long time before the Community got down to it. Eventually in 1985 we started to prepare for this single or common market and to get rid of the massive number of both tariff and non-tariff barriers that were needed. I was at the forefront of that campaign because I believed that we wanted it. At first, I thought that we could get it without any changes in legislation. I thought that if there was reasonable goodwill, we could have it. But there was not reasonable goodwill and we had to have an inter-governmental conference. And the point is this: we would never have got the single market without an extension—not the beginning, but an extension—of majority voting. We could never have got our insurance into Germany—where they promptly kept it out—unless we had majority voting. We could never have got a fair deal for our ships in picking up goods from other ports as others could pick up from ours. We could never have got a fair deal for our lorry and transport business because our lorries had to go over there full and come back empty as they were not allowed to pick up on the way back. Yes, we wanted a single market and we had, in fact, to have some majority voting.

But as noble Lords will see if they look back at the debate on that Single European Act, we were very careful indeed to say that some things are so important that they must be subject to unanimous voting. Those were—and I quote—

"fiscal provisions, free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons".

The Maastricht Treaty extends the powers of the Commission from 11 to 20 areas of government and provides for 111 new occasions when decisions can be by qualified majority. This is a massive extension. In our case, it will be only about 100 occasions unless we were to go into the single currency, which I hope we never do. Some of those majority occasions include decisions in economic and monetary policy. This is an overwhelming centralisation of decisions by bureaucracy at the expense of democracy and at the expense of accountability to the electorate. In view of what happened under the Single European Act when we got our fingers burned, it surely is time to heed Kipling 's warning:

"And the burned Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire".

Do not let ours be that bandaged finger.

That court does not have constitutional checks and balances to temper its power. What was tolerable in a few cases is not bearable on the scale it is happening now, and it will accelerate under the massive opportunities provided by Maastricht to which I have referred, thus undermining the basis upon which we require people to obey the law; namely, that either it is consecrated by time and custom or it has been made with the assent of the people's elected representatives. That is the whole basis upon which we do not ask people to obey the law; we require them to obey the law. That basis is diminishing gradually. With increased majority voting, many more laws will be made, possibly against the will of elected representatives, and Parliament could not do a thing about it.

There it is—straight out: a new stage. It is a very important big step, because it seeks a new political entity, something we have never had before. It creates a European Union. Later, Article 8 creates a citizenship of the Union, something totally new. It establishes it. It applies to every person holding the nationality of a member state.
The article refers to rights and duties and spells out the new rights which can be extended. Moreover, if there is a citizenship, you would all owe a duty of allegiance to the new Union. What else is citizenship about? There will be a duty to uphold its laws. What will happen if the allegiance to the Union comes into conflict with allegiance to our own country? How would the European Court find then? The Maastricht Treaty gives this new European Union all the attributes of a sovereign state

The voluntary alliance of 12 nations that we joined is being turned gradually into a new political entity—a European super state. I doubt very much whether the people realise what is happening.

I could never have signed this treaty. I hope that that is clear to all who have heard me. The Bill will pass considerable further powers irrevocably from Westminster to Brussels, and, by extending majority voting, will undermine our age-old parliamentary and legal institutions, both far older than those in the Community. We have so much more to lose by this Maastricht Treaty than any other state in the European Community. It will diminish democracy and increase bureaucracy.

M. Delors knew well the importance of his words when he spoke to the European Parliament in 1988. He said:

"Ten years hence, 80%; of our economic legislation, and perhaps even our fiscal and social legislation as well, will be of Community origin".

He went on, and this is not so generally known:

"In 10 countries, though"—

we were excluded—

"there has been no realization of this, and in these same 10 countries there is no co-operation between European parliamentarians and national parliaments".

Then he went on:

"What I am afraid of is that some of these national parliaments are going to wake up with a shock one day, and that their outraged reaction will place yet more obstacles in the way of progress towards European Union".

The national parliaments are entitled to have an outraged reaction. They will soon be little more than an agency for the Commission and for the European Council.
Finally, the referendum. No elector in this country has been able to vote against Maastricht—none. It has been impossible to do so. I think that when one looks at the extent of the powers which are being handed over, it would be disgraceful if we denied them that opportunity.

Further, in the other place less than half the honourable Members voted for the treaty. The electorate has not been able to vote and half the honourable Members in the other place—less than half; 292 out of some 650—voted for the treaty. We are in the Rome Treaty and in the Single European Act and we stay there. I believe that to hand over the people's parliamentary rights on the scale of the Maastricht Treaty without the consent of the people in a referendum would be to betray the trust—as guardians of the parliamentary institutions, of the courts and of the constitution—that they have placed in us.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108314

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

"It's Undemocratic. BOOOOO. Boooo. Booo hsssss."

Do you think it's democratic that 292 MPs out of 650 MPs took us into the EU? Less than 45%.

I think I recall you were a Tory voter - I'm guessing you backed Major and not Thatcher and thought it was OK to take us into the EU without a referendum in 1993?

ash28

BobQ wrote: »

So if the EP asks the Commission and it refuses to initiate or the Council insructs the Commission and it refuses to initiate, what happens to these political appointees?

How many EU laws are genuinely started by the Commission?

To be honest I don't know what happens, the Commission doesn't often refuse but I do know it has at least once in 2008. However the EP theoretically can dismiss or disolve the entire Commision and it can censure the Commission. It has done this several times in the past. And in 1999 the entire Commission resigned before it was sacked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/297461.stm

A number of the proposals come through the EU Council (national leaders), some come from the EP and some from the Council of the EU and various other organisations and agencies. Again I don't know many proposals come from the Commision itself.

If you're interested you can put forward a Citizen's Proposal - as long you get 1 million signatures!

When I have a week to spare one day, I might look into it.

BobQ

ash28 wrote: »

The EP can propose legislation through the Commission, the EP can't initiate legislation on its own, only the Commission has legislative initiative, except for common foreign and security policy, where it lies in the hands of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The EP can put proposals to the Commission but the Commission doesn't have to accept proprosals for initiatives but has to give a reason when it doesn't.

...

You are using the word initiate in a technical sense as used in the EU rather than its everyday English meaning of starting something

Yes it is the role of the Commission to initiate a proposed law. That means traft the words in the correct form and languages and send to the EP.

But the Council, national Governments the EP or a member of the EP can propose legislation and ask the Commission to formally initiate it ( just like a minister can ask the UK civil service to prepara a bill, or an MP can seek help in drafting a bill)

As you say they cannot refuse without giving a reason and that reason can be challenged. Do you have examples of laws the Commission have rejected and why? In most cases it is due to practicalities of implementation, not some Machiavellian plot

Tromking

BobQ wrote: »

You think all legislation is in a manifesto?

Nope, I said usually.

Tromking

BobQ wrote: »

So you run out of an argument and you start calling things waffle....

BobQ wrote: »

Yes voting based on not understanding the facts is a legitimate aspect of democracy, but having it pointed out afterwards is never pleasant as it carries the implication that you lack intelligence, judgement, understanding or whatever.

Nothing new was pointed out to me other than the rather hackneyed and ultimately failed remain arguments I've heard for months, including the accusation that somehow I've got all my info from pub conversations and implied insults that I lack intelligence, judgement and understanding.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

1993 Jun 7 Margaret Thatcher

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108314

TL;DR

I find reading anything written by Mrs Thatcher quite tedious so having so much text to support an argument does not make me want to read this.

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

Do you think it's democratic that 292 MPs out of 650 MPs took us into the EU? Less than 45%.

I think I recall you were a Tory voter - I'm guessing you backed Major and not Thatcher and thought it was OK to take us into the EU without a referendum in 1993?

I never got to vote in a general election when Maggie was leader of the Conservative Party and was living abroad for the 1992 General Election.

Presumably the other MPs didn't vote as they had whip agreement, a normal part of Parliamentary procedure or do you actually think something was afoot?

posh*spice

BobQ wrote: »

TL;DR

I find reading anything written by Mrs Thatcher quite tedious so having so much text to support an argument does not make me want to read this.

That probably explains why you have no understsnding of where we are