Brexit

[westlondonmist]

21 minutes ago, David said:

Because, as I've stated already, none of that really matters to me. I want a more decentralised system where the people who are charged with making the decisions that affect a country are the very people who have been elected to do so.

It's really as simple as that.

So you want a more centralised, national controlled political system at the hands of possible economic collapse and people losing their jobs. Ohhhhkaaay

[David]

8 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

The similarity between David's lack of ability to back up

I'm not quite sure how I'd go about "backing up" a belief in democracy and decentralisation of power? It's simply something that I believe in, and something that I'd support. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that it's the answer, I'm just throwing my opinion into the mix with all the others, which is how it works, right?

Are there benefits to being in the EU? Absolutely. For me especially there are tons of benefits. But personally I'd be willing to forego many of those benefits if it meant a more democratic, decentralised way of doing things.

It's the same when the Scottish independence referendum was coming up, we had pro-UK campaigners telling us that we'd be worse off financially and so on. Again, this is something many independence voters were willing to accept if it meant a more decentralised and democratic system, with Scotland's elected government taking over many of the decisions that were made in London.

The vote came and went, it didn't go how the pro-independence side wanted it to, but that's the opposite side of the democratic process, you don't always get what you want.

I believe we should have a system in place where each individual country is governed by its own democratically elected government, and where they shouldn't have to hand over any of those decision-making powers for membership to any clubs. 

It's possible to have a Europe that works together without having the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker at the helm, or Nigel Farage pulling a wage. 

[David]

Just now, westlondonmist said:

So you want a more centralised, national controlled political system at the hands of possible economic collapse and people losing their jobs. Ohhhhkaaay

No, I want a more decentralised political system, governed by people who have been democratically elected by the people they represent. 

[Gus Mears]

17 minutes ago, David said:

I'm not quite sure how I'd go about "backing up" a belief in democracy and decentralisation of power?

No, it's backing up things like 'the UK government wouldn't bother to fight against an EU army' and 'We can't get change by being in the EU', which are two things, amongst a few, that you have been challenged on and then ignored entirely, or washed over with an argument based entirely on emotion and not facts or precedence. Could we get some evidence for your view on both of those please that is more than 'because I think so'? 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Gus Mears

[Loki]

33 minutes ago, David said:

Are there benefits to being in the EU? Absolutely. For me especially there are tons of benefits. But personally I'd be willing to forego many of those benefits if it meant a more democratic, decentralised way of doing things.

It's possible to have a Europe that works together without having the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker at the helm, or Nigel Farage pulling a wage. 

It sounds like your perfect solution would be, therefore, to have the UK as part of the EU, in some sort of hugely powerful position of authority with multiple vetoes, able to mould the EU towards the sort of organisation we want it to be.

I wonder how we could ever get to that position? 

[David]

4 minutes ago, Gus Mears said:

No, it's backing up things like 'the UK government wouldn't bother to fight against an EU army' and 'We can't get change by being in the EU', which are two things, amongst a few, that you have been challenged on and then ignored entirely, or washed over with an argument based entirely on emotion and not facts or precedence. Could we get some evidence for your view on both of those please that is more than 'because I think so'? 

Okay, well, the EU army idea has picked up serious momentum due to Trump's actions, hasn't it? None of that was really a factor when David Cameron was in power. Times have changed, and we're now seeing the US getting stroppy on their commitment to NATO, and they've withdrawn from the 2015 nuclear deal.

This has basically led to the first actual serious discussions from both France and Germany that an EU army is required, which they'll say is needed now to supplement NATO and cover any lessening of US commitment.

Basically, Trump has given those who favour such a move all the ammunition that they need, and I'm not sure if the British would have stood against it, and risked being branded as the nation who helped weaken NATO, who were simply "US and Trump lapdogs."

In fact, I'm fairly certain that as long as the Germans and French spin it as being a move against Trump they'll win a lot of support for it that simply wouldn't have been there otherwise. 

You can't seriously believe that there's not more of a chance of this EU army proposal going through now than there's ever been?

As for my belief that we can't change the EU by being a part of it, those very changes would cause weakening of the EU's power, which isn't something that the EU as a whole are going to go along with. It just isn't going to happen. With the above-mentioned situation it's blatantly obvious that the EU is in no mind to wind back any of its power.

If anything it's more intent on increasing its power and establishing a United States of Europe, with Trump as their excuse for doing so.

2 minutes ago, Loki said:

It sounds like your perfect solution would be, therefore, to have the UK as part of the EU, in some sort of hugely powerful position of authority with multiple vetoes, able to mould the EU towards the sort of organisation we want it to be.

I wonder how we could ever get to that position? 

Well, you maybe need to read what I'm saying again because that's not the case at all.

I don't want nor care for vetoes or increased power within the EU, I want those who make the decisions being held accountable by the people of Europe, not just the UK. I want the people of Greece to have more of a say when the EU makes decisions regarding their situation, the people of Italy, Cyprus and so on.

Sitting back and saying "well, I'm from the UK and my government have more clout in the EU, so I'm happy enough" isn't really my way of thinking. That's the "I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest" type of attitude that sees a party of cretins like the 'Tories win power.

The attitude of many that we should have stuck with the EU because we were part of the big boys alliance with France and Germany, and to fuck with the likes of the Greeks, Italians, Cypriots and so forth isn't one that I share.

[Gus Mears]

41 minutes ago, David said:

Okay, well, the EU army idea has picked up serious momentum due to Trump's actions, hasn't it? None of that was really a factor when David Cameron was in power. Times have changed, and we're now seeing the US getting stroppy on their commitment to NATO, and they've withdrawn from the 2015 nuclear deal.

This implies that Trump's election and subsequent actions would have altered David Cameron and the entire Conservative Party's views on a European army to such an extent that it would have stopped us vetoing it. The chances of that being true are infinitesimal, due to political and ideological issues I mentioned originally. 

This has basically led to the first actual serious discussions from both France and Germany that an EU army is required, which they'll say is needed now to supplement NATO and cover any lessening of US commitment.

Yep, mostly fair.  Though France have been, to a greater or lesser degree, keen on this since De Gaulle. Jean Monnet was trying to do this all the way back when the ECSC was set up. 

Basically, Trump has given those who favour such a move all the ammunition that they need, and I'm not sure if the British would have stood against it, and risked being branded as the nation who helped weaken NATO, who were simply "US and Trump lapdogs."

This argument rests upon the view that some combination of Trump and being branded an American lapdog or someone who weakened NATO would be so unpalatable to the UK government, that they instead would decide to pool resources in an EU army; something that is resounding unpopular with both the UK electorate, the government and a parliamentary majority. It is an argument, albeit one divorced from reality. 

In fact, I'm fairly certain that as long as the Germans and French spin it as being a move against Trump they'll win a lot of support for it that simply wouldn't have been there otherwise.

You can't seriously believe that there's not more of a chance of this EU army proposal going through now than there's ever been?

This bit isn't to do with what we are debating about. I asked why you think the UK government would not have vetoed it. Also, it again skirts over the issues of unanimity voting, even with the massive assumption we wouldn't have vetoed it. 

As for my belief that we can't change the EU by being a part of it, those very changes would cause weakening of the EU's power, which isn't something that the EU as a whole are going to go along with. It just isn't going to happen. With the above-mentioned situation it's blatantly obvious that the EU is in no mind to wind back any of its power.

This is a bit of a mess logically. You tangibly can change the EU by being a part of it on big decisions because of unanimity.  We would have had a veto of this stuff had we remained in the EU. It doesn't matter if 'the EU as a whole' feels like doing x, y or z if we had a seat at the table, because we had a veto over many decisions, including those around pooled sovereignty. The EU needs unanimity to do this sort of thing (substantive treaty change) , not majority decision.

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Gus Mears

[BomberPat]

I'd also argue that Trump being president is an argument for remaining in the EU, not leaving. Not only because it gives us that veto over the decisions you're convinced the EU are making as a reaction to Trump (which you have a say in, that's what the MEPs you don't vote for are there for), but because while a vote to leave the EU is a huge risk at the best of times, it's an even bigger risk when our biggest non-EU trading partner is governed by an isolationist and erratic president.

[David]

The thing is, I'm not saying that my way is 100% bullet proof. How could I? This is a process that's unprecedented, isn't it? I don't think anything like that has happened with the EU before?

The truth is, no one really knows how it's going to go until we're a good few years into the post-EU era, and even then a whole lot more depends on how the British public vote in the years to come.

Do I have faith in the current Government? That they're the people to lead this situation? not at all, I didn't vote for them. But I don't think this opportunity would have come around again any time soon, so there really wasn't an option to say "let's stay in, and vote differently if and when a more sensible government are running things."

I've heard the numerous arguments from so-called "Brexiteers" or whatever the fuck they're called these days that tend to centre around immigration for the most part. For me, that wasn't a driving force. 

My main priority is that much of what I believe centres around the decentralisation of power. I look on the consolidation of power in the hands of fewer people as a bad thing, and others may disagree, which is fine. I enjoy reading counter-arguments and other opinions, and believe it or not, I do take on board much of what certain posters say. 

Only a fool would discount the opinions of others entirely, and while I have no doubt there's a fair bit of shit-talking going on in the paid section as I type this, rest assured that I don't share that same sentiment about your views and opinions. i'm not as small-minded, I'm open to hearing from everyone.

From a short & medium term economic standpoint I agree pretty much with what most of you think, but again, it comes down to your own level of what you're willing to accept, and as someone who does a lot of travelling and spends as much time living in Europe and beyond as I do the UK on a yearly basis it will hit me hard. I expect it.

But, I'm personally willing to accept that if it means the long-term decentralising of power within Europe.

 

[Gus Mears]

23 minutes ago, David said:

The thing is, I'm not saying that my way is 100% bullet proof. How could I? This is a process that's unprecedented, isn't it? I don't think anything like that has happened with the EU before?

Is this your response to my above points about the likelihood of the UK using a veto over an EU army and the compelling evidence that they would have? That anything can happen? Is there any more evidence than this and the things you mentioned in your earlier post? 

David, I genuinely don't have a problem with you being pro-Brexit. I do have a problem with arguments like this where you barely address points of substance and entirely fair criticisms of your opinion (and then only do so after I post things like 'can you answer the actual question'), before posting, frankly, a lot of waffle that's barely related to those entirely fair criticisms. It's not really debate, it's opinion-spew. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, Gus Mears said:

Is this your response to my above points about the likelihood of the UK using a veto over an EU army and the compelling evidence that they would have? That anything can happen? Is there any more evidence than this and the things you mentioned in your earlier post?

Unfortunately, we don't know how the UK would approach the idea of an EU army, do we? We know how they would have approached it in a pre-Trump world, but today? No one can say for sure. Especially with Trump possibly causing the weakening of NATO.

4 minutes ago, Gus Mears said:

David, I genuinely don't have a problem with you being pro-Brexit.

I'm not pro-Brexit. We all know what the term "Brexit" has come to represent, and that's not me. I'm anti-EU. There's a difference.

5 minutes ago, Gus Mears said:

I do have a problem with arguments like this where you barely address points of substance and entirely fair criticisms of your opinion (and then only do so after I post things like 'can you answer the actual question'), before posting, frankly, a lot of waffle that's barely related to those entirely fair criticisms. It's not really debate, it's opinion-spew. 

As much as I don't like doing this, your views on why the UK would veto an EU army could be described as "opinion spew," as they're based on the actions and views of a UK government who don't face the world we live in today.

It's a different time, with different challenges. Why do you think the French and the Germans have seized upon this particular moment to try and push this idea through? The time is right for them to do it, and if the UK were to speak up against it we'd likely see it framed as us going against what is good for NATO in a world where the US are pulling support.

Your belief that the UK would veto an EU army in a year or so if we'd voted to remain is no more credible or fact-based than my view that they wouldn't.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Some decent discussion on Loose Women this afternoon.

[Fog Dude]

6 hours ago, David said:

Because, as I've stated already, none of that really matters to me. I want a more decentralised system where the people who are charged with making the decisions that affect a country are the very people who have been elected to do so.

This in and of itself isn't a terrible position. I'm in favour of decentralisation too. In theory so is the EU (they call it 'subsidiarity'). I always draw the line at outright separatism, whereas you clearly don't. I'd love my town to have its own health policy, my district to make its own social security rules and my county to have full control over education, but there are economies of scale and need for universal standards that mean all those things are decided at higher levels of government instead. 

Given that, I'd actually welcome an EU army. I think matters of 'big politics' like defence, border control and policing are exactly what the EU should've been doing since Maastricht, but rather than doing that it's been stuck regulating mundane stuff like car seats, patio heaters and jugs of olive oil at restaurants, which are the sort of things national governments and local councils ought to be deciding. Member states and the EU need a massive power swap. I don't believe the direction of travel should always be to embolden Brussels and Strasbourg. We were the biggest country to argue that the solution to every problem shouldn't always be 'more Europe', and now we can no longer make that case.

If anyone voted Leave for more democracy, they aren't going to get it. South of the border we now vote for 'police commissioners' for some reason, but we still don't elect the upper house of parliament, the head of state, the Supreme Court or the civil service, and the electoral system for the Commons and our councils is atrocious (the EU Parliament has to be chosen by a form of PR, according to treaties). In Scotland you have it slightly better with semi-proportional voting systems for Holyrood and local authorities, and no PCCs. 

If there's no deal we'll revert to WTO rules. The hardliners say that's all right. It'll crash the economy and the only people who won't suffer will be the Tory toffs and their vulture capitalist mates. When did anyone last get to vote for the WTO though? How is that democratic? Democracy is about the protection of rights, a free press, an independent judiciary and the ability to protest, not just a vote on one day in June 2016, but few members of the voting public seem to understand this. The only remit the WTO has is to promote free trade, whilst the EU has always tried to balance that goal with an attempt to uphold its citizens' rights. 

Realistically the best case scenario is probably that May's deal goes through and we don't harm our own country economically as badly as we might've done. That isn't looking likely at the moment though. If it does happen, we'll still be bound by most EU rules almost indefinitely, but with no Commissioner, no seat at the Council of Ministers and zero rather than 73 MEPs, so we'll have next to no chance to influence how those rules are made. Some 'victory' for Britain that is. 

[David]

32 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

This in and of itself isn't a terrible position. I'm in favour of decentralisation too. In theory so is the EU (they call it 'subsidiarity'). I always draw the line at outright separatism, whereas you clearly don't. I'd love my town to have its own health policy, my district to make its own social security rules and my county to have full control over education, but there are economies of scale and need for universal standards that mean all those things are decided at higher levels of government instead. 

Ah, see, I'm not a fan of separatism at all. I don't want to see the UK cut off from Europe, I want to see us continue to trade as we have for decades with Europe, but to do so on our own terms (and for other countries within Europe to do the same, it's not a case of me wanting us to call the shots and everyone else has to agree).

The idea behind the EU was fine initially, I mean, who doesn't want to see trade between neighbouring countries made easier, right? The problems start when, as in many situations in life, elderly white men in suits see a way that they can grab more power.

Also, just because I'm in favour of the decentralisation of power doesn't mean I'm looking for it to be implemented to ridiculous levels all the way down to county level. It obviously has to work, and we know that the governing of nations in and of themselves is a concept that works. it worked long before the EU and the bureaucrats arrived on the scene, and it'll work long after the EU finally falls.

My view is that where possible any matter should be decentralised to the benefit of the people.

36 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

Given that, I'd actually welcome an EU army.

That's where we disagree entirely.

41 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

If anyone voted Leave for more democracy, they aren't going to get it. South of the border we now vote for 'police commissioners' for some reason, but we still don't elect the upper house of parliament, the head of state, the Supreme Court or the civil service, and the electoral system for the Commons and our councils is atrocious (the EU Parliament has to be chosen by a form of PR, according to treaties). In Scotland you have it slightly better with semi-proportional voting systems for Holyrood and local authorities, and no PCCs. 

I agree that Scotland certainly does seem to have it better, and has a system that could be looked at UK-wide.

45 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

If there's no deal we'll revert to WTO rules. The hardliners say that's all right. It'll crash the economy and the only people who won't suffer will be the Tory toffs and their vulture capitalist mates.

Doesn't the WTO account for something like 95% of all global trade? Between over 150 member nations? 

I was also under the impression that Under the WTO GATT, tariffs on most manufactured products (cars being one of the main exceptions I believe) between the EU and the UK would average around 3%? I could be wrong, of course.

50 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

How is that democratic? Democracy is about the protection of rights, a free press, an independent judiciary and the ability to protest, not just a vote on one day in June 2016, but few members of the voting public seem to understand this.

Yes, and these are the rights we should be afforded under our democratically elected government, no? Unless we're just all stupid enough to vote in a party who have plans to remove free press, an independent judiciary, and the ability to protest?

Besides, what exactly did the EU do when Spain sent the army in to batter old folk and women who wanted to vote for independence in Catalonia? Didn't really see much protection offered there to be honest.

[Fog Dude]

28 minutes ago, David said:

Ah, see, I'm not a fan of separatism at all. 

The problems start when, as in many situations in life, elderly white men in suits see a way that they can grab more power.

Also, just because I'm in favour of the decentralisation of power doesn't mean I'm looking for it to be implemented to ridiculous levels all the way down to county level. It obviously has to work, and we know that the governing of nations in and of themselves is a concept that works. it worked long before the EU and the bureaucrats arrived on the scene, and it'll work long after the EU finally falls.

My view is that where possible any matter should be decentralised to the benefit of the people.

I agree that Scotland certainly does seem to have it better, and has a system that could be looked at UK-wide.

Doesn't the WTO account for something like 95% of all global trade? Between over 150 member nations? 

Yes, and these are the rights we should be afforded under our democratically elected government, no? Unless we're just all stupid enough to vote in a party who have plans to remove free press, an independent judiciary, and the ability to protest?

Besides, what exactly did the EU do when Spain sent the army in to batter old folk and women who wanted to vote for independence in Catalonia? Didn't really see much protection offered there to be honest.

Thanks for the response.

A lot of elderly white men in suits seem pretty damn ecstatic at the opportunities afforded to them at present by the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. A lot of more casually dressed elderly white men also appear pleased by it and strangely still angry at the same time. They are less likely to profit from the fallout of all this.

There have always been "bureaucrats on the scene". Much of the extra paperwork people complain about is a domestic decision. The state can't function at any layer without a civil service. The EU is not going to fall. There has to be a political expression of the continent of Europe on the world stage and it's the best chance we've got. We're not about to establish another from the ground up. 

It's written into EU law that "where possible any matter should be decentralised" although admittedly they sometimes have trouble putting that into practice.

At least we agree on something. I'd love Holyrood's electoral system for one of the chambers at Westminster, and the preferential vote for local councils in England and Wales. Here in Somerset the 3 European elections at which I've voted have been my only experience of PR.

The point about the WTO has already been answered better than I could have. We have a much greater democratic deficit with the WTO (and NATO and the Commonwealth and the UN and every other international organisation we belong to) than we have ever had with the EU. 

Those rights are better protected under European law (both EU and the Council of Europe's ECHR, although most people miss that distinction) than they ever have been under British domestic law. I think the Conservatives would quite like to curb all those freedoms if they thought they would get away with it. Holding a plurality of the seats in the lower house elected by the first-past-the-post system hardly constitutes a 'democratically elected government' anyhow. 

So you're against separatism but back the secessionist nonsense in Catalonia? Obviously the police brutality was wrong, but the whole independence project there is insane. You realise Brexit is an act of separatism, right? The purpose of an EU army (which doesn't exist yet, so it could hardly have stepped in 14 months ago) but be to protect us from external threats, to help out when invited in times of natural disaster and to support peacekeeping missions outside Europe, not to sort out the internal divisions of a member state.