Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

always_sunny

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Are you serious?

Brexit can be undone by another act of parliament to cease article 50 if the EU agrees or by applying to re-join. This can be done in this parliament or the next ad infinitum.

In the EU the parliament cannot table and vote on legislation themselves. You must know this?

Maybe on the British side but Brexit wouldn't automatically be 'undone' as if nothing ever happened.

It doesn't works that dramatically different from other ones though:
"The Parliament, jointly with the Council of the EU, passes laws and adopts the EU’s annual budget." while the "European Commission: The executive branch of the EU, the European Commission proposes legislation..." and "Council of the European Union: Made up of ministers from the 28 Member State governments"

The EU is slightly more complex, where Member States are involved early on.

Rusty_Shackleton

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Nowhere does that show that your vote at the ballot box can effect change at the EU level.

The 2015 general election demonstrably showed that where Dave and likely our commissioner were looking for concessions from the other 27 members. We didn't get everything we wanted so the only option left was to remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the EU.

You're missing the point it seems, on purpose maybe? Your vote for an MEP cannot make them listen to the EU parliament can it?

Your vote for a political party in the UK can not influence the decision of who the commissioner will be for that party or what will be proposed at the EU level can it?

And once at that level your vote has no bearing on discussions taking place within the commission on what legislation is to be proposed, does it?

That's the long and short of it. There's no waffle in between about comparisons and similarity of expectations. Your vote means nothing more on the EU stage than a proposal, a mere suggestion.

As others have mentioned, you need to qualify this idea that future European parliaments are bound by past decisions. Since the EU system doesnt allow MEPs to initiate legislation, we need to count a parliament/government as the European Parliament, the Commission, and the Council, but nobody is bound by past decisions. Only the Commission can initiate new legislation, but Parliament can amend and reject laws... Oh, and Parliament also elect the president of the commission and can force the entire commission to resign. The Commission are accoubtable to Parliament. Thats quite a few checks and balances isnt it?

I think its also important to consider the areas where the EU legislates are those that are relevant internationally and tend to be more long term. Think along the lines of CAP, fisheries and environmental policy. Unless something drastically changes, you wouldnt expect wide support for drastic changes to long term policies.

Lets try an exercise: the UK has helped shape and agreed to a raft of environmental legislation in the EU. Our new commissioner agrees with UK gov that global warming isnt real and proposes that the EU scrap a lot of environmental legislation. British MEPs also table amendments to water down environmental legislation. If none of these attempts are successful because 27 other commissioners and a majority of MEPs don't agree, do you consider this to be undemocratic?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The 2015 general election demonstrably showed that where Dave and likely our commissioner were looking for concessions from the other 27 members. We didn't get everything we wanted so the only option left was to remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the EU.

Seriously? This attitude is exactly the problem with the UK on the world stage, a gross sense of entitlement and exceptionalism... We want we want, to hell with diplomacy and compromise. Only option left? What, as opposed to the options like restricting EU migrants to those that had a job after 3 months... Like other EU countries do but the UK CHOOSES not to?

always_sunny

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

What, as opposed to the options like restricting EU migrants to those that had a job after 3 months... Like other EU countries do but the UK CHOOSES not to?

There was something about making benefits (which apparently are the magnet) contributory like in the rest of the EU! But no, Brexit is easier apparently! :rotfl:

TrickyTree83

always_sunny wrote: »

Maybe on the British side but Brexit wouldn't automatically be 'undone' as if nothing ever happened.

It doesn't works that dramatically different from other ones though:
"The Parliament, jointly with the Council of the EU, passes laws and adopts the EU’s annual budget." while the "European Commission: The executive branch of the EU, the European Commission proposes legislation..." and "Council of the European Union: Made up of ministers from the 28 Member State governments"

The EU is slightly more complex, where Member States are involved early on.

I was aware, it wasn't pertinent to the point I was making though.

TrickyTree83

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

As others have mentioned, you need to qualify this idea that future European parliaments are bound by past decisions. Since the EU system doesnt allow MEPs to initiate legislation, we need to count a parliament/government as the European Parliament, the Commission, and the Council, but nobody is bound by past decisions. Only the Commission can initiate new legislation, but Parliament can amend and reject laws... Oh, and Parliament also elect the president of the commission and can force the entire commission to resign. The Commission are accoubtable to Parliament. Thats quite a few checks and balances isnt it?

I think its also important to consider the areas where the EU legislates are those that are relevant internationally and tend to be more long term. Think along the lines of CAP, fisheries and environmental policy. Unless something drastically changes, you wouldnt expect wide support for drastic changes to long term policies.

Lets try an exercise: the UK has helped shape and agreed to a raft of environmental legislation in the EU. Our new commissioner agrees with UK gov that global warming isnt real and proposes that the EU scrap a lot of environmental legislation. British MEPs also table amendments to water down environmental legislation. If none of these attempts are successful because 27 other commissioners and a majority of MEPs don't agree, do you consider this to be undemocratic?


Seriously? This attitude is exactly the problem with the UK on the world stage, a gross sense of entitlement and exceptionalism... We want we want, to hell with diplomacy and compromise. Only option left? What, as opposed to the options like restricting EU migrants to those that had a job after 3 months... Like other EU countries do but the UK CHOOSES not to?

You can have a hissy fit over it if you like but the fact remains Dave negotiated in good faith, everyone knew it wasn't what he wanted to get and to his word he put the option to the public. It's not entitlement or exceptionalism, it's just independence. We will go our own way thanks for trying, sorry it didn't work out. Not the tantrum like that of those who wanted to remain have had since the result was known.

Loving your analogy, the MEP's can't table legislation... that's my entire point, and you keep missing it. It was originally in reference to your claim that Thrugelmir (sp) had the power at the ballot box, they don't because the MEP's don't propose legislation.

cogito

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You can have a hissy fit over it if you like but the fact remains Dave negotiated in good faith, everyone knew it wasn't what he wanted to get and to his word he put the option to the public. It's not entitlement or exceptionalism, it's just independence. We will go our own way thanks for trying, sorry it didn't work out. Not the tantrum like that of those who wanted to remain have had since the result was known.

Loving your analogy, the MEP's can't table legislation... that's my entire point, and you keep missing it. It was originally in reference to your claim that Thrugelmir (sp) had the power at the ballot box, they don't because the MEP's don't propose legislation.

always_sunny posted an algorithm above that clearly shows that MEPs do not have the power or ability to propose legislation. It's surprising how many in the remain camp seem to be unaware of this simple fact. Democratic? I don't think so.

Rusty_Shackleton

No, i got your point that MEPs don't propose legislation, im saying that the fact doesnt make you powerless at the ballot box. MEPs give you one level of influence, in that they approve/reject/amend legislation, while your democratically elected government has a representative that can propose legislation, and your democratically elected PM sits in the Council.

If you felt you got a bad deal financially with the EU and you voted for Thatcher, well she got us the rebate. The idea that the EU is undemocratic and that any EU citizen doesn't have representation is false.

It is a different system to the UK, yes, but that does not mean it is undemocratic, and you clearly do have representation in several ways.

vivatifosi

gfplux wrote: »

These sort of posts are worth gold as they are actually from the coal face rather than my and others speculation.
Thank you AFF.
This "bulking up their presence" are those plans the same as six months ago. Have you noticed any changes in the contingency plans as the slanging match that is the negotiations has increased.
If there is no change I commend their nerve but wonder at their judgement. Do they have inside information.

There's a good report on the strength of global financial centres published by Z/Yen. The latest pdf can be downloaded and viewed here:
http://www.zyen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=7

This rates London and N.Y. as number 1 and 2 in the world for ffinance. For all the talk of the loss of Euro trading, that is only one element of what London does.

Add to that, the other big global players aren't in Europe. If London and/or New York are overtaken, it won't be by Paris or Frankfurt, it will be by the likes of Singapore, Shanghai or Hong Kong. Other than London, the highest ranking European city in the report is Zurich (11th).

If you look at the end of the report, you'll see that there areas in which other European cities such as Paris excel. The problem is that they have their strengths, but none of them are consistently top ten in all of them.

Unless all EU27 get behind a single location, it is hard to see how they can capacity build to rival London. Sending some jobs to Frankfurt, some to Paris, Dublin, Amsterdam, etc.. is never going to achieve that.

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

always_sunny posted an algorithm above that clearly shows that MEPs do not have the power or ability to propose legislation. It's surprising how many in the remain camp seem to be unaware of this simple fact. Democratic? I don't think so.

That is by design though, not by defect. You make it sound as if it is a problem when it is not.
There are talks whether this should change and expanded and fair enough, evolving.

The EU Commission is made up of EU28 representatives, the design of the EU is different than what you might have in a country. Whatever the Commission drafts has to be approved by the Council and Parliament majority or it goes back (see diagram).

You seem stuck with this "Democratic? I don't think so" as if the UK is a beacon of democracy when in fact it is not much different is it?

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

Give it up mate, you're beginning to sound desperate.

When you read the accompanying signature. Even more so. Rather omission in not saying that is an expat living in a low tax rate country though. I'm all right Jack. I've got my cake and I'm not letting go.