Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

Masomnia wrote: »

Not saying indirect democracy is the problem.

Glad you say that. Many Brexiters, however, see indirect democracy a problem in the EU, but not in the UK, for some reason. Many such examples in this thread, too.

Masomnia wrote: »

The problem is that you don't get to vote for the people who set the agenda.

Not directly. Just like you don't directly choose Ministers in the UK. Actually, you don't even choose the British PM directly!!! Especially not after a PM resigns, as current events are showing.

Masomnia wrote: »

The people we vote for in the EU have no real power, the democracy is illusory because all they can do is rubber stamp or not what the Commission lets them; and you get no say over who gets into the Commission.

How is that different from not having any direct say in who gets to be Minister of what in the UK? Please explain.

Masomnia wrote: »

Europe could vote for a majority of parties who wanted to end free movement but it wouldn't change anything because the Parliament has no power to do it.

That's wrong! Fake news alert!



What you might maybe say is that, if the European Parliament ends up having a very different composition from that of the national governments, then its (the Parliament's) powers may be limited, because you'd have a left-wing European Parliament and a right-wing EU Council, or viceversa. How these two bodies would agree the appointments to the EU Commission I don't know.





But, if most national governments are headed by the likes of Farage Salvini Le Pen, and these people also win most MEP seats, then there's little conflict. Similarly, if most national governments are headed by people like Corbyn, who also win most MEP seats, then there's little conflict.

Masomnia wrote: »

The debate over proroguing the UK parliament was interesting because Remainers apparently thought it was 'undemocratic' to stop our Parliament exercising a power that the EU Parliament does not have!

I am not following. The EU Parliament is the parliament of a supranational body like the EU, of course it won't be identical to a national parliament. If I understood correctly, Raab talked about temporarily suspending Parliament, so that it would not have the power to block a no-deal Brexit. I do not know how legal that would be under the UK non-written Constitution, but I know it would be morally repugnant.



AFAIK there are certain matters, e.g. I believe competition law, where the EU Council can decide without involving the EU Parliament. In all other matters, the EU Parliament does have the power to reject legislation. I am not aware that anyone ever proposed that the EU Parliament should have been temporarily suspended so that it couldn't block a specific legislation. Are you? Can you please clarify?

BobQ

Masomnia wrote: »

Not saying indirect democracy is the problem. The problem is that you don't get to vote for the people who set the agenda. The people we vote for in the EU have no real power, the democracy is illusory because all they can do is rubber stamp or not what the Commission lets them; and you get no say over who gets into the Commission

Apart from the fact that our Commissioners have been appointed by our elected Government.

cogito

90% of EU legislation takes the form of directives and regulations which don’t have to be approved by MEPs. They are binding on member states whose ability to block legislation is restricted by QMV.

How democratic is that?

cogito

BobQ wrote: »

Apart from the fact that our Commissioners have been appointed by our elected Government.

Appointed after backroom dealings by heads of government. Usually French and German as pointed out by Moe The Bartender above.

SouthLondonUser

Perfect it is not, but do you think that backroom dealings are absent in national politics? No backroom dealings in British politics, for example?

I'll never understand why Brexiters criticise aspects of EU politics which, well, apply just the same to local politics, including to the British one.

Also, Commissioners are proposed by national governments and then elected by the European Parliament, which as you know is elected directly.

@Cogito, do you have a source for the 90% figure? I trust you know that the European Parliament now has much more power than 15 years ago.
There are certain pieces of legislation which, even now, do not require the MEPs' approval. However, they will have typically been put together by the EU Commission and/or the EU Council. When you say "don't have to be approved by MEPs" you kind of imply that some undemocratic burocracy is imposing that. No, it's not that. The EU Commission is proposed by national governments and elected by MEPs. The EU Council is, well, effectively the national governments.

melanzana

People need to really think about NO DEAL Brexit.

Who is behind it really? For me it is Trump with whom Tories appear to be aligned, so bye bye NHS in return for a Trade Deal.

Then we have Putin who is sniggering through his fingertips hoping the UK exit (if it happens) will lead to the break up of the EU.

Leaving aside for one moment the xenophobic issues associated with Brexit, (if you deny it, back it up please) and many other issues too, how can people not see this?

Maybe there are nefarious entities at work here, I dunno, but believe me those two leaders are watching, following and waiting to pounce.

That's just my view, take it or leave it.

cogito

melanzana wrote: »

People need to really think about NO DEAL Brexit.

Who is behind it really? For me it is Trump with whom Tories appear to be aligned, so bye bye NHS in return for a Trade Deal.

This canard again. And remainers have the brass neck to accuse leavers of peddling lies.

cogito

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Perfect it is not, but do you think that backroom dealings are absent in national politics? No backroom dealings in British politics, for example?

I'll never understand why Brexiters criticise aspects of EU politics which, well, apply just the same to local politics, including to the British one.

Also, Commissioners are proposed by national governments and then elected by the European Parliament, which as you know is elected directly.

@Cogito, do you have a source for the 90% figure? I trust you know that the European Parliament now has much more power than 15 years ago.
There are certain pieces of legislation which, even now, do not require the MEPs' approval. However, they will have typically been put together by the EU Commission and/or the EU Council. When you say "don't have to be approved by MEPs" you kind of imply that some undemocratic burocracy is imposing that. No, it's not that. The EU Commission is proposed by national governments and elected by MEPs. The EU Council is, well, effectively the national governments.

You can find it all here.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/statistics/legislative-acts-statistics.html

It might not be 90% but it’s a large majority.

SouthLondonUser

Can you define "large majority"?

I am not going to go through EU laws one by one to count that for myself. Do you have a reference, yes or no?

Also, do you deny that the pieces of legislation not approved by the MEP were put together by the (democratically elected) national governments? Please clarify and elaborate.

Again, I repeat: by saying MEPs don't approve some laws, you imply that those laws were approved by some unspecified undemocratic entity. In fact, it was the national government. We may argue forever over what powers MEPs should have (I don't find the current setup perfect) but please don't distort the facts. I'd struggle to define "undemocratic" laws which were put together by the national governments of the member states.

SouthLondonUser

cogito wrote: »

This canard again. And remainers have the brass neck to accuse leavers of peddling lies.

There is a difference between an opinion, however questionable, and an outright lie.
The NHS bus thingy was an outright lie. So was saying that Albania and Turkey were about to join the EU.


Saying "for me it's Trump" is an opinion. You may agree or disagree with it, you may find it sensible or not, but it's an opinion, not a lie.


FWIW, I don't think Trump is "behind" much with respect to Brexit. But I do think that any American president would exploit Brexit to try to strike a deal that would be as advantageous to the US as possible (we'd do the same if we had the bargaining power), which means trying to negotiate as much as possible on the NHS. Many people are worried about a privatisation of the NHS; in fact, some NHS services are already outsourced to private entities. I am much more worried about whether the NHS would continue to be a price-setter when it comes to the price of drugs: a centralised buying process helps keep prices down for the NHS but Big Pharma clearly doesn't like that.