Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Agreed totally flecc. Yes, Vietnam War might not have been totally pointless but then after congressional investigation revealed all the early information and French involvement it was felt USA had been " had" ( their words) by supposed Allies. ( French)
Modern Europe tends to forget or not even realise what French ambitions were , yet very quick to portray UK has colonialists. We,ve seen it on here.
But back OT.
Yes, I can see and appreciate both yours, Tom's and Danidl's feelings about EU and democracy. I,m not questioning your view of any of that, yes you are free to appreciate whatever model of democracy you wish but so am I.
The model taken up by USA has nothing at all to do with it. Like I,ve said before, both myself and millions of others are perfectly happy with our version and nobody has any right to enforce on us another model. There are faults with all but IMO ours has the least. Yes, we are enforcing our model.on you but that is why we had a referendum. Sorry, but that's how it is. Had we voted to remain, I,d be saying like flecc I want a USE...the inevitable end for EU...but as of moment we are leaving. ( probably)
The idea I find very strange is that way back in 72 ( ir was it 74??) did anyone really envisage that one day we would be discussing a completely different model of democracy that currently runs in parallel to our own, perhaps the next generation would have been discussing that model if democracy completely replacing our own. I don't think anyone voted for either of those options back then but they are with us.
Last edited:
Dear....dear me.....that just can't be right..........It's an irony that it's the western forces of capitalism that's doing the very same thing in the opposite direction now. [B said:
Happy with Westminster? what kind of happiness would that be, a fools paradise methinks.
But as I've posted as number of times a future unified country called either Europe, USE or whatever will have our form of democracy, voted for representation at all levels. The indirectly voted for elements of the EU like the Commission are only there to facilitate achieving the union, they won't exist afterwards since they won't have any function.
So there isn't a different model of democracy to fear, the only difference will be that of an added level. At the moment in England we often have two levels of local and one level of national government, 3 in all. In Wales and Scotland they have added regional government, so up to 4 in all.
In a united Europe those will go up another one, but for England that will only mean the same as Scotland and Waled have now. And many in England already feel we should have regional government too, so what's so terrible about another level added.
I don't buy the 13% argument, since that's about all the influence we have now. Each of the areas we live in has it's own priorities and needs, often not agreeing with others, but no one region has enough influence in parliament to get it's own way. So that is no different from our influence in the European Parliament, or that of any other EU country. It's the fundamental democratic deficit, we always have to accept the compromise that all others accept, no matter what size of democracy we live in.
.
Its a convincing and fair argument but ( and its rather a large but) how many years are we off that ideal..and its at a level of assimilation nobody actually envisaged back in 70's.
Should all this have been put to the electorate back then ? Well no , because it wasn't envisaged then. The EU has developed into this.
And OG
Much as you , like many others, are not happy with Westminster your disapproval is irrelevant as nobody is planning on removing ( or even modifying ) Westminster only adding another level of democracy above it. A level I,m not sure we need and a level our government has ,and would continue to , ignore when it suits.
In other words we have a complete redundant assembly costing millions that entire EU ignores. I dont think any other country buys into EU any more than we do, its been my experience even less.
As to not buying into the 13% argument, its a free world , you are entitled to not buy into anything. Personally, I think its important, so voted accordingly.
Perhaps you think the entire EU should have been involved in the referendum. They are in everything else ( if we remain), but we could have just ignored result ...
I,d guess leave would have got 7% or so EU wide. ??? Which sums up the irrelevance of EU wide voting on UK matters.
Would remainers on principle wanted entire EU voting on our leaving or remaining ? If not, you are actually a leaver frightened by all Osborne's fear campaign.
Last edited:
perhaps because they, like Brexit Voters did no checking as to the intent and purpose of the EEC?
Do you really think the Government were that stupid they had no idea, when it was all spelled out in the original documents setting the organisation up?
And here is a thought, for you, why should it have bothered the Public they weren't bothered enough to object were they?
Nor did it bother our Government much did it, or they would have objected at the time.
What a convenient memory Brexit Voters have, for remembering thoughts and fears they now believe they had in that Past, when in fact they didn't give a damn at the time.
Masters of Delusion! if History doesn't suit you, make up a false one to justify your argument.
Last edited:
you're getting the hang of proportional representation, it also means when there is a self obsessed nut job (say a creep like reese mog who is against welfare for the disabled, welfare in general, homophobic, anti euthanasia, anti abortion on any grounds etc
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/votes
there may be other more humane voices to counterbalance him.
Perhaps Expats living abroad should have been given a chance too come to that and that would not have helped the Brexit side, would it?
This from the LSE
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people/
Yes it was, from the outset the European project was about unification of any element it was to cover. As soon as any form of economic standardisation is imposed that's obvious, so I knew that when I voted in 1972. I agree our UK dishonest politicians didn't make that clear but if our electorate had bothered to be more interested in Europe that wouldn't have mattered.
I wouldn't have minded that, it would have been overwhelmingly a Remain vote. Note how the EU members hitting difficulties like Greece, Portugal, Spain and previously Ireland still don't want to leave the EU. It's only half of the UK that wants to.
.
These issues are above and beyond my 13% .
"Compared to a country, the EU has democratic shortcomings
Seen in that light, there are a number of key democratic shortcomings or failings in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Usherwood:
•The European Council and the Council of Ministers (the two bodies where member countries meet) still hold many sessions in private or only partly make their records public, which makes it difficult to always know who has said what, or how individual countries have voted;
•Much implementation of EU laws still happens under the opaque ‘comitology’ system, although it has been changed recently;
•The European Parliament lacks some of the powers normally associated with national parliaments. It cannot formally propose new laws or raise taxes, for example;
•There is no clear alternation of power. While different groups might gain more seats in the European Parliament, this is not necessarily matched by similar changes in the ‘executive’ branches of the EU—the European Commission, and the national governments in the Council;
•The complexity of the system also makes it hard to ensure that EU funds are not misspent;
•Perhaps most significantly, most EU citizens do not identify strongly with the EU, so some will argue that it doesn’t have the same legitimacy that national systems enjoy."
From " EU, all the Facts. Investigation by Sara Haggeman , Simon Usherwood"
"Compared to a country, the EU has democratic shortcomings
Seen in that light, there are a number of key democratic shortcomings or failings in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Usherwood:
•The European Council and the Council of Ministers (the two bodies where member countries meet) still hold many sessions in private or only partly make their records public, which makes it difficult to always know who has said what, or how individual countries have voted;
•Much implementation of EU laws still happens under the opaque ‘comitology’ system, although it has been changed recently;
•The European Parliament lacks some of the powers normally associated with national parliaments. It cannot formally propose new laws or raise taxes, for example;
•There is no clear alternation of power. While different groups might gain more seats in the European Parliament, this is not necessarily matched by similar changes in the ‘executive’ branches of the EU—the European Commission, and the national governments in the Council;
•The complexity of the system also makes it hard to ensure that EU funds are not misspent;
•Perhaps most significantly, most EU citizens do not identify strongly with the EU, so some will argue that it doesn’t have the same legitimacy that national systems enjoy."
From " EU, all the Facts. Investigation by Sara Haggeman , Simon Usherwood"
Tell me where does any of that differ from what goes on here?
compared to what? a Westminster system, in which the fact that I live in a predominantly tory county means my vote doesn't count at all. and tory votes don't count either given that their "local" representative is some party sycophant. who lies in any case about everything, before doing whatever benefits his/her private corporate backer (who will offer him/her a nominal corporate career post politics)? and that's before we get to the gulf between electoral manifestos and actual politics. how about your own words, arguments
Of course, it's what I've just said, but those are only to achieve the union because it's necessary. Once achieved they won't exist.
.
The first point raised is a fact , the rest are opinions.
So regarding the first point. The minutes of the UK cabinet discussion are not published. The discussions of the Irish cabinet likewise are not made public. In fact it is an offense for the discussion to be published..even by a minister. There would be no freedom of information request entertained....
flecc i can assure you my bikes run perfectly well without the assistance of the above items,
and hopefully when we escape the clutches of the horrid EU we can maybe adopt the US model that`s in some states and have 750W / 20mph.
Roll on March 2019 !!
Don't be too confident. Originally in UK law we had assisted bicycles dealt with as motorcycles, with all the legal implications. That persisted for 38 years until the EAPC regulations recognising e-bikes as something different. Then we made our own pedelec laws, but instituted a rigid 200 watt limit, coupled to an assist speed limit of 12 mph. We also brought in restrictive weight limits that made some types of pedelec impossible and a lower age limit that no-one else had.
It was the need to harmonise with the EU that forced a change to 15 mph assist limit 5 years later, but the change to match their 250 watts took 32 years! Finally to further harmonise with the EU the silly weight limits were removed in 2015, but we're still stuck with the lower age limit.
So that's the record, the UK very restrictive and most often unnecessarily so, the EU almost entirely the opposite, even allowing 28 mph assistance speed pedelecs for member countries wanting them and no weight or rider age limits on either type.
I know which governance I prefer in all matters, and it sure as hell isn't the UK's nanny state restrictiveness.
.
Last edited: