Page 192 of 194 FirstFirst ... 92142182190191192193194 LastLast
Results 5,731 to 5,760 of 5796

Thread: Brexit Begins

  1. #5731
    The point is that the EU isn't a democracy because the boss isn't elected by the people.

    Now you might think "but the people of the UK don't vote for the boss (head of state) either", so the UK also isn't a democracy.

    But you're wrong.

  2. #5732
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    A drop in the ocean compared to what has already left and is continuing to leave the UK, with no passporting nor other financial services guarantees nor provision in the Brexit deal; banks continue to move out of London, following America's largest. 10 or 20 billion pounds a year is pittance. Come back to us with numbers in the trillions in increased trade to make up for FS-loss then we might see a net economic break-even.


    Indeed, this is fairly universally acknowledged on both sides of the debate. Brexit was not about the economy.

    So meaningless 'sovereignty' tat counts for more in the minds of the majority of the British public who voted for Brexit than their own economic well-being. Though I doubt the complexities of the huge downward economic fallout from Brexit was realistically considered by many who voted. And now the UK is where it is, a steadily poorer and poorer nation over the next 10-20 years, with a shrinking treasury, shrinking salaries, increasing poverty, struggling public services, people less able to afford a roof over their heads nor food on their table.

    But that's ok. Sovereignty or something.
    So you claim but what macroeconomic evidence do you have for trillions lost? And no a bit of cherrypicked business and a few jobs relocating away while ignoring others come that come the other direction over to here is not macroeconomic evidence.

    The UK voted to leave halfway through the last decade, yet over the last decade (much of which was after our referendum) the UK grew faster than the Eurozone did. Faster, not slower. Growth, not decline.

    We'll see what happens over the next decade but I expect the same again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could vote for MEP as well. And your country was represented by your PM and cabinet as well, which you do elect. QSure, the British MEPs may be overruled by others, but that's also the case for your local MP right?

    Though I do think there's a lot of room for improvement in transparency on how the EU operates, and how it is reported. But that your own MPs are 'hiding' by blaming the EU is, frankly, a problem of your MPs that you elect yourself.

    Anyway, this is what you guys wanted, so good luck.
    If MEPs were entirely responsible for writing, setting, debating and repealing laws then you'd have a point. You'd still have other issues to debate like do we want our decisions made Europewide rather than nationally, and the fact there's no meaningful Europewide elections or opposition debating the issues, but they'd be lesser issues.

    But that's not the case is it? Last year Parliament passed what was called the "Benn Act" against the wishes of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. He didn't want the Act passing, but a majority of MPs did, they voted to ensure they could pass it and from the backbenches that became law despite the PM and Cabinet opposing it. Because a majority of MPs wanted it, which is democratic.

    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis?

    EDIT: To paraphrase Gogo the UK is a democracy because "the boss" does whatever the elected Parliament tells the boss to do. The EU is not the same.
    Last edited by RandBlade; 01-22-2021 at 02:19 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #5733
    Move to EU to avoid Brexit costs, firms told

    Exporters advised by Department for International Trade officials to form EU-based companies to circumvent border issues

    British businesses that export to the continent are being encouraged by government trade advisers to set up separate companies inside the EU in order to get around extra charges, paperwork and taxes resulting from Brexit, the Observer can reveal.

    In an extraordinary twist to the Brexit saga, UK small businesses are being told by advisers working for the Department for International Trade (DIT) that the best way to circumvent border issues and VAT problems that have been piling up since 1 January is to register new firms within the EU single market, from where they can distribute their goods far more freely.

    The heads of two UK businesses that have been beset by Brexit-related problems have told the Observer that, following advice from experts at the Department for International Trade, they have already decided to register new companies in the EU in the next few weeks, and they knew of many others in similar positions. Other companies have also said they too were advised by government officials to register operations in the EU but had not yet made decisions.

    Andrew Moss, who runs Horizon Retail Marketing Solutions, based in Ely, Cambridgeshire, which sells packaging and point-of-sale marketing displays in the UK and to EU customers, is registering a European company Horizon Europe in the Netherlands in the next few weeks, on the advice of a senior government adviser.

    This will mean laying off a small number of staff here and taking on people in the Netherlands.

    Referring to discussions with a senior DIT adviser on trade, Moss said: “This guy talked complete sense. What I said to him was, have I got another choice [other than to set up a company abroad]? He confirmed that he couldn’t see another way. He told me that what I was thinking of doing was the right thing, that he could see no other option. He did not see this as a teething problem. He said he had to be careful what he said, but he was very clear.”

    Moss said it was now clear that Brexit was not about winning back control from the EU but investing in it to survive.

    Geoffrey Betts, managing director of Stewart Superior Ltd, a company in Marlow, Bucks, which sells office supplies to UK and continental customers, said he had also decided to set up a company in the Netherlands for the same reasons.

    He had also spoken to an official at the Department for International Trade before making his decision and received the same advice. “When the government said it had secured free trade, it was obvious it was nothing of the sort,” said Betts. VAT issues, new charges on moving goods and more bureaucracy all added up to an “administrative nightmare”, he said.

    By moving operations into the EU and shipping out large consignments from the UK to their new European operations, the businesses can not only avoid cross-border delays and costs on every single small consignment they send, but can also defuse VAT problems that are currently hitting them and their European customers hard.

    The Department for International Trade was approached for comment but did not respond.
    The farce continues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  4. #5734
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,214
    So much winning.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  5. #5735
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,214
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis?

    EDIT: To paraphrase Gogo the UK is a democracy because "the boss" does whatever the elected Parliament tells the boss to do. The EU is not the same.
    Since you seem to have no clue on how the EU actually works, here are some pointers for you:

    https://webstroke.co.uk/law/eu-law/e...ion-law-making

    Educate yourself because you're making yourself look stupid once again. I'm astounded: The combined knowledge of the world is at your beck and call but you choose ignorance.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  6. #5736
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    So you claim but what macroeconomic evidence do you have for trillions lost? And no a bit of cherrypicked business and a few jobs relocating away while ignoring others come that come the other direction over to here is not macroeconomic evidence.

    The UK voted to leave halfway through the last decade, yet over the last decade (much of which was after our referendum) the UK grew faster than the Eurozone did. Faster, not slower. Growth, not decline.

    We'll see what happens over the next decade but I expect the same again.
    If MEPs were entirely responsible for writing, setting, debating and repealing laws then you'd have a point. You'd still have other issues to debate like do we want our decisions made Europewide rather than nationally, and the fact there's no meaningful Europewide elections or opposition debating the issues, but they'd be lesser issues.

    But that's not the case is it? Last year Parliament passed what was called the "Benn Act" against the wishes of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. He didn't want the Act passing, but a majority of MPs did, they voted to ensure they could pass it and from the backbenches that became law despite the PM and Cabinet opposing it. Because a majority of MPs wanted it, which is democratic.

    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis?

    EDIT: To paraphrase Gogo the UK is a democracy because "the boss" does whatever the elected Parliament tells the boss to do. The EU is not the same.
    Getting major MAGA "we're a republic not a democracy" vibes here.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #5737
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Since you seem to have no clue on how the EU actually works, here are some pointers for you:

    https://webstroke.co.uk/law/eu-law/e...ion-law-making

    Educate yourself because you're making yourself look stupid once again. I'm astounded: The combined knowledge of the world is at your beck and call but you choose ignorance.
    All of that matches my understanding and description. Please quote exactly which bit you think contradicts any of what I wrote and explain why.

    The law making process
    There are two ways in which new EU law can be made, determined by which conferred competence the legislative act will address. The first is through the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP), which used to be called the co-decision procedure, and the second is through the Special Legislative Procedure (SLP).

    In the OLP, a Commission proposal goes through three readings. In the first reading, either the Council or the European Parliament may accept or reject the proposal. If the proposal is accepted, it will be enacted. If it is rejected, the Commission will amend its proposal is accepted, it will be enacted. If it is rejected, the Commission will amend its proposal before a second reading. This time, the Parliament may opt only to veto the proposal; if it ignores it, will be be for the Council only to change or enact the proposal. If the Parliament and Council disagree, the third ‘reading’ is a conciliation committee, where a small group of Members of Parliament and Council Ministers will negotiate and either enact or veto the proposal. The Council may amend any proposal through a qualified majority vote (QMV).

    There are 2 types of SLP. In the first type (the consultation procedure), the Council may adopt a Commission proposal, but must take account of the opinion of the Parliament. Parliament only has the power to delay enactment. Roquette Frères v Council [1982] confirmed that consultation must actually take place. In the second type (the consent procedure), the Parliament must give their express consent to a proposal. The consent procedure applies to the EU budget, international agreements and legislative acts adopted using Article 352 TFEU (see competence of the EU).


    So how does Parliament initiate a law change, Benn Act style, over and against the wishes or interests of the Commission?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #5738
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Getting major MAGA "we're a republic not a democracy" vibes here.
    Yes the EU is like that.

    The UK is a democracy not a republic. Power rests entirely with the elected Parliament. Unlike the EU whose Parliament can veto Commission laws perhaps but don't get to initiate or override the Commission.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #5739
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Yes the EU is like that.

    The UK is a democracy not a republic. Power rests entirely with the elected Parliament. Unlike the EU whose Parliament can veto Commission laws perhaps but don't get to initiate or override the Commission.
    This is a nonsensical understanding of democracy. I brought up that MAGA soundbite because it's stupid and wrong—there is no inherent incompatibility between being a republic and being a democracy. The US is a democracy; the UK, despite being a monarchy, is also a democracy. Both of your countries have similar democratic qualities and similar democratic deficits (eg. that your electoral systems allow for legislatures in which half of your voters or more have no real representation, unlike real democracies in which voters have proportional representation in their legislatures). Your characterization of the EP's role is inaccurate and misleading. The EP is responsible for appointing the chairperson of the Commission, as well as the other members. It can also dismiss the Commission. The EP can task the Commission with submitting a legislative proposal, which it then has the power to adopt, amend or block.

    A defining characteristic of racists, xenophobes, Little Englanders and other flavours of blinkered populist is the compulsion to oversimplify the world—to turn it into a black-and-white picture devoid of detail and nuance. It's the ideology/pathology of simplism—to which you're once again demonstrating your close affinity.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  10. #5740
    Can the EP pass a law over the head of the Commission like the UK Parliament can with the Benn Act. Yes or no?

    Can the EP initiate potential new laws that the Commission does not like and get them debated in the EP and potentially passed as the UK Parliament does all the time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  11. #5741
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Can the EP pass a law over the head of the Commission like the UK Parliament can with the Benn Act. Yes or no?
    Is that the definition of democracy? No. It's like arguing that the definition of democracy is that all business is conducted in British English. The Commission chairperson is elected by the democratically elected EP, which also approves the other commissioners. This is one expression of representative democracy.

    Can the EP initiate potential new laws that the Commission does not like and get them debated in the EP and potentially passed as the UK Parliament does all the time?
    As I told you in the post right above yours, the EP can task the Commission with submitting a legislative proposal.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #5742
    So no the EP can't introduce and pass its own laws, against the Commission. So I was right in saying that and Khen was totally incorrect in saying I was wrong to say that.

    You can challenge the significance of that all you like, but I was 100% factually correct wasn't I?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #5743
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    So no the EP can't introduce and pass its own laws, against the Commission. So I was right in saying that and Khen was totally incorrect in saying I was wrong to say that.

    You can challenge the significance of that all you like, but I was 100% factually correct wasn't I?
    ... er, mate, you're not factually correct even about what you said, and what Khen said in response to that
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #5744
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    ... er, mate, you're not factually correct even about what you said, and what Khen said in response to that
    Yes I am. This is what I said and this is what Khen quoted and replied to:

    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis?

    EDIT: To paraphrase Gogo the UK is a democracy because "the boss" does whatever the elected Parliament tells the boss to do. The EU is not the same.


    So care to answer the question then if I am wrong?

    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis? It is a simple enough question: Yes or no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #5745
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Yes I am. This is what I said and this is what Khen quoted and replied to:

    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis?
    That is an excellent example of an attempt to beg the question. The Commission derives its democratic legitimacy from being appointed—through votes—by the EP, a body that is elected in a far more democratic manner than your own Parliament. The EP can task the Commission with submitting a legislative proposal, and can amend such proposals. The EP can also dismiss the Commission. Because the Commission is chosen by the truly democratically elected representatives of EU citizens, and because the Council also represents the democratically elected governments of the member states, every actor in the legislative process has democratic legitimacy. In addition to this, regular EU citizens have their own legislative power—through the citizens' initiative—which permits them to task the Commission with submitting a legislative proposal, and permits them to present their arguments to the Commission and the EP.

    EDIT: To paraphrase Gogo the UK is a democracy because "the boss" does whatever the elected Parliament tells the boss to do. The EU is not the same.
    Sure, except, of course, when "the boss" tricks the Queen into proroguing Parliament. But that is only one form of democracy, and there are others. Using your reasoning, we could argue that the UK is not a democracy, because Swiss style direct democracy is the truest—and, therefore, the only true—form of democracy.

    So care to answer the question then if I am wrong?

    Can a majority of MEPs change the law against the wishes of the unelected Commission - and against the wishes of the European Council which is also not elected on a European basis? It is a simple enough question: Yes or no?
    You are wrong in at least two ways. The first is that you're trying to beg the question by presupposing the truth of your unproven position that this test is the arbiter of democracy, which it is not. The second is that Khen (quite appropriately) suggested you don't understand how the EU works—not that a superficial reading of your statement was totally wrong. This would be true if you'd instead confidently asserted that the flag of the EU is blue and gold; it's true, but, in a discussion about the democratic legitimacy of the EU, not very relevant.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #5746
    Disliking the question doesn't make the question wrong.

    The European Parliament can't introduce its own laws, unlike the UK Parliament.
    The European Parliament can't have backbench laws debated, unlike the UK Parliament.
    The European Parliament can't have opposition laws debated, unlike the UK Parliament.

    Every single week it is sitting in general Parliament dedicates time to proposed backbench laws and opposition motions. Most of these have no hope of actually getting through Parliament, though many of them actually do either in their own right or by later becoming adopted by the Government into a law of its own - none of it comes from the executive, it comes from MPs in Parliament acting as a legislature and drafting legislation.

    You may not think these things matter. I do. Gogo whom I addressed this to, before Khen falsely interrupted and said I "have no clue how the EU actually works" before sending a link that shows the EU actually works exactly as I said it does, might care too. Or he might not. Either way the point stands whether you like it or not. Either way the "flaw" I said with the European Parliament actually exists - if you care to say its not a flaw then make that argument, don't claim I don't have a clue how the EP works and then demonstrate it works exactly like that.

    PS on average historically in this country about half a dozen "Private Members Bills" per annum become law directly as a Private Members Bill - not including those like the prohibition on "upskirting" that began life as a PMB only to become adopted into a larger bill by the Government. That's MPs doing their job as a legislature. How many laws come from MEPs rather than the Commission?
    Last edited by RandBlade; 01-26-2021 at 07:47 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #5747
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Disliking the question doesn't make the question wrong.
    The question is wrong because its presupposes the truth of the position that your particular conception of democracy is the only true version of democracy. But, as we have seen, this same type of reasoning can be used to argue that the UK is not a democracy—because the only true form of democracy is one where voters have proportional representation, or where voters have the same level of influence as Swiss voters, or where voters all speak Hindi.

    You may not think these things matter. I do. Gogo whom I addressed this to, before Khen falsely interrupted
    You were responding to Flixy.

    and said I "have no clue how the EU actually works" before sending a link that shows the EU actually works exactly as I said it does, might care too. Or he might not. Either way the point stands whether you like it or not. Either way the "flaw" I said with the European Parliament actually exists - if you care to say its not a flaw then make that argument, don't claim I don't have a clue how the EP works and then demonstrate it works exactly like that.
    Your lack of understanding of how the EU works is apparent in your inability to understand where the legislative branches' democratic authority comes from. The Commission is

    The European Parliament can't introduce its own laws, unlike the UK Parliament.
    The European Parliament can't have backbench laws debated, unlike the UK Parliament.

    [...]

    Every single week it is sitting in general Parliament dedicates time to proposed backbench laws and opposition motions. Most of these have no hope of actually getting through Parliament, though many of them actually do either in their own right or by later becoming adopted by the Government into a law of its own - none of it comes from the executive, it comes from MPs in Parliament acting as a legislature and drafting legislation.

    The European Parliament fairly represents voters, unlike the UK Parliament, which allows MPs representing a minority of voters to have an absolute majority not proportionate to their share of the votes; this is a systemic disenfranchisement of more than half of your voters. Your Parliament and govt. have not represented a majority of voters in several generations. I suspect most of your MPs do not represent a majority of voters in their respective constituencies. You speak of backbenchers having influence in Parliament, but, in light of the fact that a majority of your voters are not represented in your Parliament, that backbencher influence is just another democratic deficit—because it gives MPs representing a minority of their constituents inordinate power over a majority that did not elect them.

    The European Parliament can't have opposition laws debated, unlike the UK Parliament.
    You might want to think about this statement again before Khen—once again—legitimately accuses you of not having a clue.

    PS on average historically in this country about half a dozen "Private Members Bills" per annum become law directly as a Private Members Bill - not including those like the prohibition on "upskirting" that began life as a PMB only to become adopted into a larger bill by the Government. That's MPs doing their job as a legislature.
    Given that these MPs don't represent even a majority of their own constituents, I'm not sure why you're upholding this as a good thing; it means that representatives of a minority are making laws that are adopted by representatives of a minority, disenfranchising a majority of voters. Doesn't look like democracy to me. If Gogo were a Labour voter in a Tory constituency, he would, in practice, have to resign himself to never being able to choose his representation in Parliament. Not democratic at all.

    How many laws come from MEPs rather than the Commission?
    If I ever find a summary of how many laws are submitted in response to invitations from the EP or the Council, I'll let you know. As for the ECI, six have been successful so far, and over a dozen are still active.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #5748
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    The question is wrong because its presupposes the truth of the position that your particular conception of democracy is the only true version of democracy. But, as we have seen, this same type of reasoning can be used to argue that the UK is not a democracy—because the only true form of democracy is one where voters have proportional representation, or where voters have the same level of influence as Swiss voters, or where voters all speak Hindi.
    No it does not. You presuppose whatever you want to presuppose, I made no such claims. If you wish to make an argument then make an argument, I am entitled to make my own and point out what I consider pros and cons.
    You were responding to Flixy.
    Yes sorry, Flixy. So to correct: "You may not think these things matter. I do. Flixy whom I addressed this to, before Khen falsely interrupted and said I "have no clue how the EU actually works" before sending a link that shows the EU actually works exactly as I said it does, might care too."
    Your lack of understanding of how the EU works is apparent in your inability to understand where the legislative branches' democratic authority comes from. The Commission is
    I'm assuming you're missing an important phrase there? Was it going to say which Europe wide election the Commission stood in? Or some other fudge?
    The European Parliament fairly represents voters, unlike the UK Parliament, which allows MPs representing a minority of voters to have an absolute majority not proportionate to their share of the votes; this is a systemic disenfranchisement of more than half of your voters. Your Parliament and govt. have not represented a majority of voters in several generations. I suspect most of your MPs do not represent a majority of voters in their respective constituencies. You speak of backbenchers having influence in Parliament, but, in light of the fact that a majority of your voters are not represented in your Parliament, that backbencher influence is just another democratic deficit—because it gives MPs representing a minority of their constituents inordinate power over a majority that did not elect them.
    Now who is presupposing? You are categorically wrong, all voters are represented by a single MP to represent their local area. All voters have the right to approach and speak to their local MP and have him or her bring up their issues in Parliament - it need not be only voters they voted for that do so. Voters may vote for a party that loses in their constituency but their vote is still counted and the victor represents everyone not just their own voters.

    But as already discussed the European Parliament which is actually elected plays second fiddle and can't even legislate off its own back. It needs to invite others who were not elected to draft the legislation for it, rather than introducing and passing its own legislation.
    You might want to think about this statement again before Khen—once again—legitimately accuses you of not having a clue.
    OK then citation needed please. Please bring up a bill written by Opposition MEPs that was brought into the European Parliament for debate and voted on. Any will do. The "Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018" was the most recent to be passed in this country, written by a Labour MP, introduced from the opposition benches, debated, voted on and became law. The government wasn't "invited" to consider the subject, it was proposed to Parliament from the opposition benches. Which was the most recent bill introduced from the opposition benches to become law or be debated in the European Parliament - can you name it please?
    If I ever find a summary of how many laws are submitted in response to invitations from the EP or the Council, I'll let you know. As for the ECI, six have been successful so far, and over a dozen are still active.
    No, not "by invitation". That's a different matter. Anyone can "invite" the Government to make a bill. I'm talking about those that bypass the Commission entirely and come entirely from the opposition or MEPs, not those the Commission deems it worthy to introduce after an invitation. If the Commission does not want a bill introducing but the legislature does and MEPs in the legislature write the legislation can they put it before Parliament to be voted on? That is an important element of a legislatures job in most democracies - you may not consider it important but I do and it is entirely appropriate to point it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  19. #5749
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,214
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    So how does Parliament initiate a law change, Benn Act style, over and against the wishes or interests of the Commission?
    Counterquestion: Why on Earth would they need to?

    There's no reason why every single legislative body also needs to have the power to introduce laws. Our Bundestag, for example, also cannot introduce new laws. Those come from the Bundesrat. Does that mean that Germany is not a democracy?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  20. #5750
    I would say it is a deficit, yes. You're entitled to disagree, but I think any MP within the legislature having the power to introduce laws, not just the government of the day, is an important democratic principle.

    But either way do you accept the fact that your link earlier demonstrated that the EU operates exactly the way I was saying it did?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #5751
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    11,509
    According to the website of the Bundestag, members of the Bundestag have the right of initiative. I would not go as far as to say that the MEPs not having that right makes the EU undemocratic, but it certainly is a flaw. The flaw is intentional though as it is a serious impediment on federalisation of the Union.
    Congratulations America

  22. #5752
    Wow, thank you Hazir. That is very interesting, good to know that Germany doesn't have the flaw that Khen thought they did.

    I must also say on this subject I am going to horrify you - because I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you.

    The lack of initiative and the lack of proper democracy and scrutiny at a European level is deliberately designed to have a figleaf that the EU is not a federation. Especially for the benefit for the United Kingdom when we were a member, but not only us. It is a serious flaw.

    The issue is that hiding away the fact the EU has federal powers by hiding away from federal scrutiny in the exercise of those powers doesn't make the situation better, it makes it worse. Either the EU should not have those federal powers, in which case there's no need for federal exercise of them or federal scrutiny - or you accept the EU is a federation and do the job properly with the European Parliament taking its rightful place as a proper federal Parliament in a proper fully functioning federal democracy.

    I suspect on this issue Hazir and I might rarely be able to agree on something European. Now I chose not a federation and so voted Brexit. But for those who remain its time to crap or get off the pot. Hopefully post-Brexit the figleaf impediments to federalisation can be removed - if you're not going to halt and rollback federalisation then do it properly.

    Currently those who want a proper federation are denied that by the impediments. Those who wanted proper nation states are denied that by EU membership. Pick a path and take it. If you're going to be a federation then make that clear and make that a conscious choice, knowing all it entails - which indeed entails a proper federal Parliament with proper federal powers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #5753
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,183
    Just read an interview with the guy responsible for checking food etc at the border. A bit shocked to be honest: at the time of the interview (the 18th) he had so far seen zero shipments where everything was in order. Direct quote: "It would be good if the British started to prepare their paperwork". Note that they check stuff from various other countries in exactly the same way, so it's not like it's impossible. Sounds like British companies were for a big part utterly unprepared for this.

    And not just teething problems, though those are also plenty. British IT systems are not okay so a lot of things are done with (lacking and unclear) handwritten forms, lack of available British customs officials, etc., it really looks like this was pretty poorly prepared.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  24. #5754
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #5755
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    That's probably good news, although I'm more keen to trade less with countries further away. It's better for the environment and 2020 has shown just how fragile globalisation can be. I'm not sure trading more with the rest of the world is the right strategy for the UK. We should focus more on our own sustainability - only focusing on ensuring raw materials can be sourced from outside, where necessary. We should be shifting away from consumerism, throwing less stuff away and making our own products that last longer. There's entire industries to be established with such a strategy and more global trade isn't compatible with it.

    How are decisions, laws and regulations made in the CPTPP? Are we applying to run the body so we have complete control? If not, why would want to sacrifice our freedom and sovereignty?

    I assume this'll decision will go through parliament so our elected representatives can scrutinise and vote on membership.

    Why did America decide to leave? Why was it bad for them but good for us?

  26. #5756
    Quote Originally Posted by gogobongopop View Post
    That's probably good news, although I'm more keen to trade less with countries further away. It's better for the environment and 2020 has shown just how fragile globalisation can be. I'm not sure trading more with the rest of the world is the right strategy for the UK. We should focus more on our own sustainability - only focusing on ensuring raw materials can be sourced from outside, where necessary. We should be shifting away from consumerism, throwing less stuff away and making our own products that last longer. There's entire industries to be established with such a strategy and more global trade isn't compatible with it.

    How are decisions, laws and regulations made in the CPTPP? Are we applying to run the body so we have complete control? If not, why would want to sacrifice our freedom and sovereignty?

    I assume this'll decision will go through parliament so our elected representatives can scrutinise and vote on membership.

    Why did America decide to leave? Why was it bad for them but good for us?
    The US abandoned it primarily due to Trump. The decision probably harmed their own long-term interests, and it's not unlikely the Biden admin will resume where the previous normal admin left off—if that's still possible. It's the best hope the UK has of getting a major trade deal that involves the US, but it might come at the expense of a closer relationship with China (which is probably "good" but perhaps not an easy situation to be in). Without the US, this deal—though it would be positive—would not be very significant purely from a trade perspective; most of the modest benefits of a future CPTPP membership have already been gained through agreements currently in effect. Facilitation of migration may be an important future benefit.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #5757
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55939857

    Forget Frankfurt and Paris, says Barclays boss

    Interesting article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  28. #5758
    some positive words there from Jes Staley, and strikes a moderately different tone to the rather more downbeat but still relatively quiet voices from the bosses of other institutions in the City.

    And what he says makes sense, but these are hopes and aspirations of what might become, rather than what we are seeing at present.

    The big worry (for the UK), as the article points out and I have mentioned in this thread, is that the financial services sector was all but ignored in Brexit negotiations, leaving mostly uncertainty for the industry, beyond the only real certainty at present and that is the trillion-euro euro-clearings business no longer being licensed in London, pushing the entire business over to being conducted in EU territories.

    Other facts from the article:
    -----
    "It's not everyone's favourite industry, but the financial services sector employs 1.1 million people, with two-thirds of them outside London. It is nearly 100 times more economically important than fishing and pays a whopping 11% of all taxes.

    It was also almost totally ignored in the Brexit negotiations - access to EU markets enjoyed for decades ended in January. About £1 trillion in capital and assets and up to 10,000 jobs left the UK industry as firms set up EU subsidiaries."

    -----

    These are significant numbers, that have already left the treasury. The continued uncertainty may lead to further trillions leaving this country. Big, big numbers. Indeed, they may not. I accept that, and Jes Staley for one does not seem unduly worried.

    The article concludes that, so far, given the size of the global financial services market a trillion or two here and there marks an erosion of the market in London rather than an exodus. But an erosion of trillions is an enormous hole for any chancellor to plug. Again, as I have continually repeated in this thread.

    I hope Jes Staley is right, and Brexit does allow the UK, still as the centre of this industry, the scope and opportunity to forge a slightly new and different path and retain it's central position.

    I remain sceptical. It's a long game at the moment, but still a game where that central position is indeed eroding today.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  29. #5759
    Hopefully clearing will be sorted, but there's a difference of course between trillions in assets nominally changing jurisdictions and billions or trillions in taxes doing so. Many companies seem to have set up a glorified PO Box in Europe for holding the assets while keeping the jobs and real work in London so it will be interesting to see as time goes on how that affects taxation.

    I like the logic in the article that, far from being so big that financial services needed dealing with, that financial services are 'big enough to look after themselves'. The simple reality is that financial services are so big and so global that its important London is a rule setter not a rule taker. Hence its not as simple as "agree a deal".
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  30. #5760
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •