advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect (2023 ‘Epic Fail’ box set edition)

tuga said:
Yet for all your righteousness we’ve had several unelected bureaucrats governing the realm and a lot of unaccountability.
Click to expand...
We have, but this is a domestic issue, it really has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit, bar the fact that the políticos can't blamethe EU any more.

tuga said:
Now try arguing how much better the UK government is than the EU’s
Click to expand...
You don't really want me to go through all that again, do you?
 
tuga said:
@eternumviti in all your eloquence could you list aspects of British life which have been harmed by the UK membership of the EU? Practical things that affect the lives of citizens, environment, labour, justice, health, transparency in the finance world, not the usual tired rants about sovereignty.
Click to expand...
You ask me a question, then cut off a highly relevant part of my reply with a dismissive insult. You might do yourself a favour next time.

In regard of the first part of your question, EU law is so deeply ingrained in all of the aspects that you mention that it's really quite impossible to answer. I compiled a list a few weeks ago, do you want me to go back and find it?
 
eternumviti said:
You ask me a question, then cut off a highly relevant part of my reply with a dismissive insult. You might do yourself a favour next time.

In regard of the first part of your question, EU law is so deeply ingrained in all of the aspects that you mention that it's really quite impossible to answer. I compiled a list a few weeks ago, do you want me to go back and find it?
Click to expand...
Please do, and repost here.
 
eternumviti said:
Certainly.
Click to expand...
Don’t get distracted, this back road is purely about having 2/3 majorities for things like referendums. If, for example, the Lisbon treaty had only gone 50/50 (yes, I’m aware there wasn’t a vote) then sure, it should have gone back to be reconsidered. Maybe that would result in stalemate, but what better incentive for the ‘unelected’ management to go back and do something the electorate wanted for a change?
Same with Brexit. If we had a higher bar to cross, perhaps the 50/50 vote would have brought about positive change, rather than the mess we have now.
Of course you could argue (and probably will) that it would simply give the EU the impetus to carry on regardless. I’m sure there’s some mechanism which can be devised to prevent that happening though.
 
eternumviti said:
In regard of the first part of your question, EU law is so deeply ingrained in all of the aspects that you mention that it's really quite impossible to answer. I compiled a list a few weeks ago, do you want me to go back and find it?
Click to expand...
Do you list the negative effects those laws and regulations had in the areas I mentioned or just things you don't like?
 
tuga said:
Supreme and bad?
Click to expand...
Supreme always (bar opt-outs and areas where the EU doesn't have competence). Bad? Of course not necessarily, indeed often good.

commission.europa.eu

Areas of EU action

The European Union can only act in those areas where its member countries have authorised it to do so, via the EU treaties. The treaties specify who can pass laws in what areas: the EU, national governments or both.
commission.europa.eu commission.europa.eu

tuga said:
Also, was that EU law voted for by MEPS in parliament?
Click to expand...
Indeed. Debated and amended.

We've been here before, many times.
 
Nero said:
Don’t get distracted, this back road is purely about having 2/3 majorities for things like referendums. If, for example, the Lisbon treaty had only gone 50/50 (yes, I’m aware there wasn’t a vote) then sure, it should have gone back to be reconsidered. Maybe that would result in stalemate, but what better incentive for the ‘unelected’ management to go back and do something the electorate wanted for a change?
Same with Brexit. If we had a higher bar to cross, perhaps the 50/50 vote would have brought about positive change, rather than the mess we have now.
Of course you could argue (and probably will) that it would simply give the EU the impetus to carry on regardless. I’m sure there’s some mechanism which can be devised to prevent that happening though.
Click to expand...

I haven't got any particular view about the size of the majority in the leave referendum. I'm not comfortable with the road that brexit took given the closeness of the vote, but what really matters to me is that there weren't referenda on Maastricht and Lisbon, and there should have been. I've not really engaged with the size of majority necessary for a referendum to carry. Countries such as Switzerland and Ireland should probably act as templates.

The EU has a track record of ignoring the results of popular votes that go against its wishes. It just keeps on asking different versions of the same question again until it gets the answer it wants, as indeed it tried to do with the brexit vote, largely via its proxies here, within and without parliament.
 
Kirk said:
How about in your next post.
Click to expand...
It was in a reply to one of the Steves on Jan 4th. If you're that keen to see it, look it up or do a thread search. Please don't expect me to indulge you just to play your silly little schoolyard games.
 
eternumviti said:
I haven't got any particular view about the size of the majority in the leave referendum. I'm not comfortable with the road that brexit took given the closeness of the vote, but what really matters to me is that there weren't referenda on Maastricht and Lisbon, and there should have been. I've not really engaged with the size of majority necessary for a referendum to carry. Countries such as Switzerland and Ireland should probably act as templates.

The EU has a track record of ignoring the results of popular votes that go against its wishes. It just keeps on asking different versions of the same question again until it gets the answer it wants, as indeed it tried to do with the brexit vote, largely via its proxies here, within and without parliament.
Click to expand...
Even if the above is true, what at this present moment can we assess as Pros and Cons of Brexit...? To date I have yet to hear any positive effect of Brexit for us in the UK. As to Cons there are too many and I think most of the contributors on this thread do not need to be reminded. When an own goal is mistakenly scored in football the manager most probably would advise the player, and most probably give the player a second chance for a place in the team. Unfortunately when David Cameron recklessly gave the vote to the UK public (half of which probably had no idea as to the effects of Brexit) and there is no 'second chance' but certainly a lot more bureaucracy.....!😒
 
Spraggons Den said:
Constituency boundaries are reviewed every 5 years by a largely apolitical commission. Why would they require voter participation to ratify the changes?
Click to expand...
When it can be manipulated to the advantage of a party. The Tories have also created a voter ID law which manipulates the demographics to their advantage.
 
davidsrsb said:
Us expats now get a vote again. I don't know why the press assumes we would vote Tory. Many are very angry at what Brexit has done to us.
www.bbc.com

Brits living abroad for more than 15 years get general election vote

The rule change will see around two million more people eligible to register for a vote.
www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

On balance they are Tory demographic, admittedly some may have taken a different view given Brexit or the subsequent display. They are also curiously rather anti-immigration, for, err, immigrants. The term "ex-pat” to semantically confer some kind of elevated status compared to fellow immigrants is one that should be consigned to the bin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top