Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

movilogo

Brexit has never been about 'democracy', about better business opportunities, about taking back control or any of that. It's been about a blind ideology, a cult, a religion, which, like any cult, requires blind faith and is oblivious to any logic which dares challenge its core beliefs.

Same thing can be said about EU.

Remainers blindly assume that:


status quo = good = stay in EU
change = bad = leaving EU


If someone wants tea there is no point in trying to convince why he should drink coffee instead. People voted to leave EU, let us leave. Ask another vote few years later whether people want to join EU again and let that be.

Democracy should allow people to change minds but should not be used only when they want to change from Leave to Remain.

buglawton

Tromking wrote: »

The only thing I’ve heard is that the Eurozone will via majority voting opt for harmonised corp taxes. Much to the annoyance of Ireland and Luxembourg apparently.

Isn't this just an EU Code of Conduct on business taxation policy initiative at the moment?
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/1881

SouthLondonUser

movilogo wrote: »

Same thing can be said about EU.

Absolutely and categorically no! The EU is a project about greater integration, frictionless trade, and, most of all, avoiding conflict on a continent made of countries that had spent the vast majority of their existence fighting each other!

Remainers blindly assume

Blindly? I have explained my reasoning in excruciating detail. There is nothing blind about that. I have explained why I think the EU has done a far better job than most UK governments in protecting workers’ rights, food safety standards, the environment, etc. I have explained that, IMHO, we’ll have very limited bargaining power in a post-Brexit world, and the price to pay for many trade deals will be to lower our standards (again: chlorinated chicken, anyone?).

You don’t agree with any of these points? Fine, so debunk them! Explain what country would ever prioritise a trade deal with the UK (60m people, $2.6 tr GDP) vs the EU (ca. 450m people and $15.5tr GDP, excluding the UK). Explain what bargaining power the UK would have vs the US and why. Explain in what way the EU has consistently legislated against UK interest.

If someone wants tea there is no point in trying to convince why he should drink coffee instead.

What a non-sensical comparison. Whether you drink tea or coffee is a subjective preference that does not affect others at all.
Whether we should have stayed in or left the UK is a life-changing political decision with far-reaching consequences for generations!!! Yes, I do appreciate that many gave the decision the same thought they give to tea vs coffee, but that doesn’t make it a sensible decision-making process!

Democracy should allow people to change minds but should not be used only when they want to change from Leave to Remain.

Ever wondered why some countries do not allow referendums on things like fiscal policy and international treaties? No, it’s nothing to do with the “elites”; it’s because these matters lend themselves to exploitation by populism. If you disagree, let’s have a referendum on a 5% flat income tax rate, and then tell me how we are supposed to live with the consequences without betraying the will of the people!

The referendum was flawed for multiple reasons. It is totally idiotic to have a political system where a qualified majority of MPs is required to call an early election, but a simple, 50%+1 majority of voters is sufficient to decide on a life-changing, and practically irreversible (for at least a generation) decision like this one! But, most of all, voting “to leave” without any indication of what that meant was totally non-sensical. Not to mention the irregularities of the Vote Leave campaign, all the lies, the fake news, the NHS bus bull*, the lies about Turkey joining the EU, etc etc etc.

Zxcv_Bnm

SouthLondonUser wrote:

What on earth are you alluding to?

But the Nobel committee was serious. It applauded the EU for its contribution over six decades to ‘the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe’ and being instrumental in ‘transforming most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.’
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2016/05/how-valid-claim-eu-has-delivered-peace-europe

shame about the balkans, ukraine, crimea, etc

SouthLondonUser wrote:

Ehm, and how is this different from what happens in the UK?

how it's different is that in the UK we have an election and the winning party forms a cabinet with individual ministers tasked with implementing its manifesto, which is what was voted on. Opposing it the defeated party provides a leader of the opposition and a shadow cabinet. The government then has to get its measures through parliament.

The EU Commission has no manifesto that is voted on, no member of it is voted for, no member is tasked with anything and there is no shadow EU Commission advocating eg the repatriation of sovereignty. Whatever laws it wants to enact are voted on by MEPs but the Commission is not obliged to act on any MEP vote, so there are constructively no elections worth a damn and the EU parliament is a mugs parliament that can neither create nor vote down legislation.

the other body that approves EU legislation is the EU council which also has no power to propose or adopt laws, it just approves it

that's how the EU differs from a democracy, by not being one

it resembles that phoney parliament Bismarck set up in the 1860s where he proposed laws, 40 "MPs" could vote them down and Prussia had 42 of them.

just like UK ministers can and do act independently of MPs!

not if they want a law passed they can't
MPs can propose laws and have to pass those proposed by the govt
the EU parliament can't propose laws and the EU commission can ignore its votes

Please explain how British voters can vote out the British government before the next elections?

nobody said they could
I said you can vote the government out
you cannot vote the EU government out because it is not elected

Since you are so obsessed with sovereignty and accountability, let me also remind you that the British PM wanted to make extensive use of the so-called Henry VIII clauses, didn’t want parliament to have a say on whether we should have exited the EU (surely you remember Gina Miller?), didn’t want to disclose the legal advice it received on the draft deal and the Irish backstop, etc etc etc.

and where did the PM get with all that? nowhere. democracy
with the EU there is none and it ignores its own laws when it suits it
eg borders within Schengen, bailout of Greece, both "illegal"

let's run Tony Benn's 5 tests of democracy over the EU commission shall we?

“What power have you got?”
The power to dictate laws to be passed in 27 countries

“Where did you get it from?”
I was appointed

“In whose interests do you use it?”
Those of the EU Commission

“To whom are you accountable?”
Nobody

“How do we get rid of you?”
You can't

still LOLing at your "The Commission, which can be thought of as a cabinet government"

SouthLondonUser

While the Nobel to the EU seemed a bit farcical to me, the statement that the EU was instrumental in ‘transforming **most** of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace’ is factually correct and undisputable. Balkans, Ukraine, Crimea etc are certainly tragedies but they don’t deny the fact that, again, the large European nations went from constantly fighting each other to being at peace with each other. You are also forgetting the tiny miniscule detail that the tragedies you mention happened to countries not part of the EU. Which EU countries went to war against each other in the last decades? None!! Yes, Ukraine is a big tragedy, but I’m not sure how it can be the EU’s fault. Is the EU directly responsible if Putin invades? Come on….

The EU Commission has no manifesto that is voted on,

It doesn’t have an explicit manifesto because its members are appointed by the democratically elected governments of the member states! Again, indirect democracy, but democracy nonetheless.

For the EU Commission to have an explicit manifesto, there would need to be an executive branch of the EU chosen more directly by the electorate and with less of a link to the national government. Is this what you would want? Do you realise the fallacy of your argument?

The EU Commission doesn’t have an explicit manifesto because it is an expression of the governments of each country; each country has elections at different times and focused on different topics. Would you want to delink the EU executive branch from the governments of each country?

no member of it is voted for

Totally, completely and utterly irrelevant. Again, EU Commission Members are not voted directly by the electorate, just like no UK minister is. This doesn’t make UK ministers any less legitimate!!

, no member is tasked with anything

False. Fake news. It’s a lie.
Look up the current structure: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019
You will clearly see the responsibility of each Commissioner.

and there is no shadow EU Commission

Totally, completely and utterly irrelevant. A shadow cabinet is a UK tradition, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not codified in law and has no real power. Many democracies all over the world do not have an explicit shadow cabinet – this doesn’t make those countries any less democratic!!!
Brexiters should really make the effort to understand that there’s a big world out there, and that not all of it functions the exact same way you’re used to!

advocating eg the repatriation of sovereignty.

Totally, completely and utterly irrelevant. It’s like saying there is no MP in Westminster advocating the overthrow of our Parliamentary democracy and the replacement of the rule of law with the rule of anarchy!

the EU parliament is a mugs parliament that can neither create nor vote down legislation.

False. On some matters, like new EU treaties, the vote of the European Parliament is non-binding. But not on all matters. For example, the European Parliament was instrumental in modifying the Bolkenstein directive on services; whether you agree with the directive is not the point, the point is that MEPs blocked its first iterations and were instrumental in modifying the text.

that's how the EU differs from a democracy, by not being one

it resembles that phoney parliament Bismarck set up in the 1860s where he proposed laws, 40 "MPs" could vote them down and Prussia had 42 of them.

Totally, completely and utterly irrelevant comparison! MEPs are elected directly and Commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of each member state.

“What power have you got?”
The power to dictate laws to be passed in 27 countries

“Where did you get it from?”
I was appointed

It’s not quite like that! The executive branch is, for the last time, an expression of the democratically elected governments of each country.
The European Parliament is elected directly and, while its powers are more limited vs that of a national parlament, it can and does block legislation, like in the case of the Bolkenstein directive. So it’s a fail on these tests. Let’s see the others.

“In whose interests do you use it?”
Those of the EU Commission

No, not necessarily. Commissioners have a duty to act in the interest of the whole Union, not just their own country. This is exactly the same as the British MPs’ duty to act in the interest of the whole country, not just that of their constituents.
I ask you again: what is your basis to say that the EU has consistently acted against UK interests? I have made many examples of why I think the EU has done a better job than UK governments in protecting workers’ rights, food safety standards, the environment, etc. You evidently disagree, so I am anxiously looking forward to your carefully substantiated reasoning and detailed evidence to back that up.

“To whom are you accountable?”
Nobody

Not true!

“How do we get rid of you?”
You can't

Again, not true!

I said you can vote the government out
you cannot vote the EU government out because it is not elected

No! You do not even understand how the UK system works. British voters do not “vote a government out”; in fact, they do not even vote a government in, in the sense that they have no direct say in who gets to be part of the cabinet. British electors vote for their MPs, knowing that the leader of the ruling party will be the next PM. AFAIK the UK (unwritten) constitution does not give the electorate any way to get rid of a government it doesn’t like before the next elections.

European electors directly vote for MEPs, while the appointment of EU Commissioners is indirect, just like the appointment of British ministers is indirect (they’re not chosen directly by the electorate) yet not for this any les legitimate.

SouthLondonUser

There is a study by the University of Edinburgh which refers to the anti-vaxx movement, but I think the same applies to Brexit. It basically says that debunking fake news with facts and evidence is useless. Another way to think of it is that it is, unfortunately, a waste of time to try to reason with people who refuse to listen to facts (just like, again, it's useless to talk about gun control to many Texans).

The problem is when these people take decisions, on the basis of their fake news, which affect the lives of everyone else...

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/40605920/Plos_One_paper.pdf
Results show
that existing strategies to correct vaccine misinformation are ineffective and often backfire,
resulting in the unintended opposite effect, reinforcing ill-founded beliefs about vaccination
and reducing intentions to vaccinate.

Zxcv_Bnm

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

OK, let's ignore the fact that the guy you quoted notoriously holds anti-scientific views which have been clearly debunked.

So it's factually correct then, we agree on that

The examples you make are totally unreasonable. The EU is about integration. You keep talking about 'returning power', voting to disband the Union, etc. It's like saying: can the British Parliament vote to disband itself? It's a totally non-sensical example!!!

complete rubbish and tunnel vision
the EU is about irreversible political union because that's the faction running it, just like USSR elections were about "electing" only communists and no other communists were allowed
it need not be
it could be a customs / standards union
there could be an elected EU Commission with manifestoes from either side
- unionist: let's abolish britain and become a country called the EU
- commercial: let's remain just a trading bloc

The real crux of the matter is: what powers does a member country have to block a legislation it does not like?

none

Since you are so obsessed with sovereignty etc etc, let me ask you: what are the EU laws that you despise the most and why? What did the UK try to to block them? Do you see a pattern of the EU constantly going against UK interests? If so, please elaborate.

the CAP, the CFP, the euro, MIFID, MIFID 2, MAR, the EU army, VAR harmonisation, EU disregard for referenda it doesn't like and for its own "laws" when convenient

[/quote]Foaming-at-the-mouth Brexiters love to describe the EU as this undemocratic beast going against our interests, yet fail to provide clear examples!

foaming at the mouth Remainers don't even understand what they want to Remain in or what it intends to become

A union of almost 30 countries can only be run by a coalition.

it's run by a politburo of unelected nominees

Enterprise_1701C

Saying the eu has created peace is ridiculous, unless you assume that the only reason Germany has not thrown any tantrums lately is because it is currently running a good part of europe anyway, along with France.

As far as i am concerned it is NATO and the UN that have ensured there has been peace just lately.

Zxcv_Bnm

MobileSaver wrote: »

I must have missed this breaking news; on what date will corp taxes become an EU Power? Or is that just more fake news?

https://www.euronews.com/2018/07/05/france-hopes-for-eu-corporate-tax-deal-by-mid-2019

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430504

Zxcv_Bnm

melanzana wrote: »

There are advocates in the Commission for tax standardisation but it would need unanimity and there is no chance of that.

If the EU commission decides it's to happen it will happen
nobody else has the power to block it
the commission nodding dogs and the council nodding dogs are all nominees who do as they're told
the parliament can legally be ignored