EU Brexit thread

[Al_U_Card]

What you are describing is a representative democracy whereas Winston is talking about a true (pure/direct) democracy. Very few places use the latter - Switzerland is assuredly the closest to it within Europe with a system that is a mixture of the two.

And Switzerland is NOT a member of the EU AND their economy is insulated from the vagaries of eco-loon green "edicts" from the central bureaucracy.

[Winstonm]

Mais non, pas du tout. The will of the people is to keep guaranteed employment (if you can get it) that is for life or until retirement. Then the pension is index linked to 50% of your full earnings in your best earning years (adjusted for inflation). That's what the people want, but the government is contrarily trying to move them into the 20th century. That is NOT democracy.

 

The problem with democracy (in its pure form) is that the will of the majority can eliminate the rights of the minority. Likewise, the problem with capitalism in a democracy is that the majority may decide to wrest ownership rights from the wealthy. It is thus a constant battle in democracies as to which side will determine government policies.

 

The wealthy have their money and influence as their allies; the working class has numbers, if aligned. It is therefore imperative for the working class to have the ability and will to band together for their common good.

 

The alternative is to "let them eat cake", and as that ideology did not work out so well it might be wise for everyone to move toward compromise.

[Zelandakh]

And Switzerland is NOT a member of the EU AND their economy is insulated from the vagaries of eco-loon green "edicts" from the central bureaucracy.

You should perhaps be happier that the EU is insulated from the eco-green policies of the Swiss. Or perhaps just accept that they see their interests as being aligned with those of the EU in this area (even if you disagree with the resulting policy).

[Vampyr]

Very confusing..the UK does not control and influence the people it appoints to the EU. It does not tell them what to do? It cannot fire them at will? If true can the UK at least impeach and remove them?

---------------

 

For example here in the USA the cabinet members may be fired anytime for any reason by the PResident and the President can be fired via impeachment(complicated)

 

Impeachment applies to crimes, not incompetence/irresponsibility.

 

As far as the UK representatives are concerned, they may or may not do what they can (22 out of 73 are UKIP), but they can be easily outnumbered by representatives from countries whose interests don't necessarily align with ours.

[mike777]

Impeachment applies to crimes, not incompetence/irresponsibility.

 

As far as the UK representatives are concerned, they may or may not do what they can (22 out of 73 are UKIP), but they can be easily outnumbered by representatives from countries whose interests don't necessarily align with ours.

 

 

ok so to answer my question how does the UK fire these guys or are they an equal member of the government and answer to no one but themselves? I understand they are not the only voters in the EU but posters seem to say that not one UK EU controls or even has influence over the EU?

 

 

Again pls keep in mind we here in the USA no nothing or less than nothing when it comes to the EU, who it is, what it is or what power they have.

 

For example here in the USA the government has the power to:

1) Kill you if you commit a bad crime.

2) put you away for life in a horrible prison getting assaulted and raped every horrible day

3) take away your home and land even if you commit no crime, yes this is true and happens. (eminent domain)

4) force you into the army even if you dont want to go.

[Al_U_Card]

 

For example here in the USA the government has the power to:

1) Kill you if you commit a bad crime.

2) put you away for life in a horrible prison getting assaulted and raped every horrible day

3) take away your home and land even if you commit no crime, yes this is true and happens. (eminent domain)

4) force you into the army even if you dont want to go.

 

Isn't there also the anti-terrorist legislation that allows for all kinds of mayhem to your person and possessions if you are SUSPECTED of terrorist activity?

[fromageGB]

ok so to answer my question how does the UK fire these guys or are they an equal member of the government and answer to no one but themselves? I understand they are not the only voters in the EU but posters seem to say that not one UK EU controls or even has influence over the EU?

 

 

Again pls keep in mind we here in the USA no nothing or less than nothing when it comes to the EU, who it is, what it is or what power they have.

 

For example here in the USA the government has the power to:

1) Kill you if you commit a bad crime.

2) put you away for life in a horrible prison getting assaulted and raped every horrible day

3) take away your home and land even if you commit no crime, yes this is true and happens. (eminent domain)

4) force you into the army even if you dont want to go.

The EU has none of these powers. It imposes laws, controls various policies that have to be adopted by member countries, spends money as it sees fit - largely on themselves, it seems, or on lost causes. We cannot fire them.

 

The EU is run by the Commission. It is not elected, but comprises one person from each member state, chosen by the Council (see below). God knows how that person is selected. I don't know who the UK person is. This Commission alone is the body that decides what new laws are going to be proposed, sets spending plans, draws up budgets (hah!) and in theory monitors spending. The Commission alone negotiates internationally (eg trade) with the world on behalf of EU.

 

Law proposals created by the Commission are then discussed and passed by a parliament that is elected, but has no control.

 

There is also a "European Council" that is supposed to set political direction, comprising all current heads of state, but this also has no power other than to put forward suggestions for the Commission to consider.

 

So the EU is run by the Commission, and 25,000 civil servants. Management by committee and management by bureaucracy is the name of the game, and with a committee of 28 people with conflicting interests (though they are supposed to forget their individual nationalities) it does not seem to be able to do much other than self-aggrandise. In practice it seems steered by the Commission President, currently Juncker, and it seems he wants to accept TIPP regardless of the fact that it is not wanted by France and apparently other European states. Here, the parliamentary opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has at least had the gumption to say that a future Labour government will veto TIPP, but of course he has no power of veto. Even if he does ever get to be prime minister.

 

That is the problem. Laws are determined opaquely and imposed without a power of national veto.

[Al_U_Card]

In practice it seems steered by the Commission President, currently Juncker,

Are there not other presidents within the EU? (Altho Juncker is the "front-line" guy...)

[shyams]

Are there not other presidents within the EU? (Altho Juncker is the "front-line" guy...)

 

A fascinating glimpse into the EU bureaucracy:

1. President of the European Council: Donald Tusk

2. President of the European Commission: Jean-Claude Juncker

3. President of the European Parliament: Martin Schultz

4. Presidency of the Council of EU: The Head of one of the 28 EU member states (e.g. currently, the Prime Minister of Netherlands)

 

Then, there is a President of the European Central Bank, a President of the European Court of Justice, a President of the European Court of Auditors.

 

Interestingly, the Court of Auditors is required to audit & approve the financials of the EU. Their audit report often contains "Adverse opinions" on matters of expenditure. When was the last time any large private sector firm got an "adverse opinion" from their auditors and remained unaffected? Well, in the case of the EU, it is business as usual.

[blackshoe]

Too many cooks Presidents. :( :blink:

[1eyedjack]

My guess is that John Donne would have been a Bremainer, had the question been asked in 1624.

 

No man is an island,

Entire of itself.

Each is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less.

As well as if a promontory were.

As well as if a manor of thine own

Or of thine friend's were.

Each man's death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

[shyams]

My guess is that John Donne would have been a Bremainer, had the question been asked in 1624.

 

A Brexit referendum outcome does not mean the British Isles will physically drift away further into the Atlantic and far away from Continental Europe. It is a purely political decision, reflecting both the hopes and fears of the votes AND their assessment of the "value" of the EU bureaucracy/democracy.

 

Barring the short-term convulsions in the currency & stock markets -- which could be spectacular -- there is an argument to be made that the true impact of a Brexit on the UK economy will be minimal. We have one of the most open & welcoming capital markets, inflow of core investments (both capital & technology) remains strong, the labour markets are both dynamic & employer-friendly, and the infrastructure is mostly good. Once the "fear" phase is gone, it is not difficult to visualise that business will return to normal.

 

Some related points about the EU itself:

* The Greek Crisis showed that the EU was great at sweeping a crisis under the carpet without really addressing the core issue. Greece still remains at risk of economic implosion

* The Refugee Crisis was an example of parochial behaviour by (supposedly strong) believers of the EU framework. There are border controls in place between Austria & Germany! I also read somewhere that the Copenhagen-Malmo bridge also has new border controls.

 

All in all, it is not improbable that a Brexit will lead to a massive destabilisation of the European Union superstructure and a consequent destabilisation of the EuroZone.

[mike777]

OK it seems the only purpose the EU has per the posters is too stop another war in Europe. The problem is there is a shooting war going on in Europe now where one European country with ships and tanks and modern weapons of war has taken over parts of another European country and the response from the EU has been not much more than stern letters of warnings. A war where many EU citizens have been killed.

 

 

If The EU cannot stop or reverse such things America wonders what purpose it does serve.

[Vampyr]

OK it seems the only purpose the EU has per the posters is too stop another war in Europe. The problem is there is a shooting war going on in Europe now where one European country with ships and tanks and modern weapons of war has taken over parts of another European country and the response from the EU has been not much more than stern letters of warnings. A war where many EU citizens have been killed.

 

I cannot work out which war you mean, unless it is between Russia and Ukraine.

 

Neither of these countries is in the EU, and Russia is not politically, culturally, and for the most part, physically, a European country.

[fromageGB]

If The EU cannot stop or reverse such things America wonders what purpose it does serve.

My impression is that the EU caused it, by making overtures to pull Ukraine into its fold. The purpose of the EU is to make itself bigger and more important.

[fromageGB]

All in all, it is not improbable that a Brexit will lead to a massive destabilisation of the European Union superstructure and a consequent destabilisation of the EuroZone.

The EU is destabilised and irretrievably failing already. I don't think Brexit will make much difference to that, and the referendum is really about who wants to be a rat, and who wants to stand with the captain on the bridge.

[Cyberyeti]

My impression is that the EU caused it, by making overtures to pull Ukraine into its fold. The purpose of the EU is to make itself bigger and more important.

 

The seeds of it were sewn in (I think) the 50s when the Russians gave Crimea to Ukraine, without ever considering Ukraine might not be part of the Soviet Union/bloc.

 

The EU triggered it, but what do you do if Ukraine asks to join ?

[mike777]

Just be to clear and I hope i was before, America does not blame/fault the EU for the war in Ukraine or the war in the Balkins.

 

I am going to assume the Eu existed during the balkins' europe war. If not nevermind.

 

 

 

 

It just seems if the big goal, the really big goal is too stop war in Europe with the Eu it is failing in this goal.

 

As an American I assume that the number one goal of the EU is to protect its citizens. You can debate the best path forward or you can hide your heads in the earth and say its not my problem I want to be a pretty, old, very wonderful museum.

 

 

Again I rely on posters, you posters to tell us why the Eu exists and if it is worthwhile. We in the USA know little.

 

I in no means suggest what the UK should vote

[mike777]

I cannot work out which war you mean, unless it is between Russia and Ukraine.

 

Neither of these countries is in the EU, and Russia is not politically, culturally, and for the most part, physically, a European country.

 

 

WOW ..YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT INDEED RUSSIA IS:

1) POLITICALLY EUROPE

2) CULTURALLY EUROPE

3) pHYSICALLY eUROPE

 

 

 

I GIVE UP

 

BTW i NOTE YOU GIVE HOW MUCH TO YOU CARE ABOUT uRKRAINE...YOU MAKE MY POINT

 

 

yOU GIVE A ***** ABOUT IT

[Cyberyeti]

WOW ..YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT INDEED RUSSIA IS:

1) POLITICALLY EUROPE

2) CULTURALLY EUROPE

3) pHYSICALLY eUROPE

 

 

 

I GIVE UP

 

BTW i NOTE YOU GIVE HOW MUCH TO YOU CARE ABOUT uRKRAINE...YOU MAKE MY POINT

 

 

yOU GIVE A ***** ABOUT IT

 

The EU was formed originally to stop a war in WESTERN Europe between its members (Mainly Germany/France).

 

The former Yugoslavia was not a part when it exploded, nor is Russia.

 

There is an awful lot more of Russia that is not in Europe than in Europe and it has hundreds of individual cultures.

[gordontd]

WOW ..YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT INDEED RUSSIA IS:

1) POLITICALLY EUROPE

2) CULTURALLY EUROPE

3) pHYSICALLY eUROPE

 

 

 

I GIVE UP

 

BTW i NOTE YOU GIVE HOW MUCH TO YOU CARE ABOUT uRKRAINE...YOU MAKE MY POINT

 

 

yOU GIVE A ***** ABOUT IT

Worth noting that Vampyr lived in Russia probably for longer than almost any other regular contributor on these forums.

[fromageGB]

I like this one - reflection of the England football team :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt//

9th June, if you are looking at a later date.

[fromageGB]

Talking about the decline and disintegration of the EU, this is an interesting report :

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

Scroll down to the second and third images.

Not surprisingly the Poles favour the EU, but I am surprised they found sufficient numbers remaining there to conduct a poll. Nevertheless, you can see the increasing general feeling in the EU that it is going to the dogs.

[Zelandakh]

Mike, a little history for you. The EU started life as a small trade pact between Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg (Benelux). That was expanded to most of central Europe to form the EEC itself. As the political union became more important, the moniker EEC eventually became somewhat redundant and it was relabelled EU. But the heart of the thing remains the advancement of trade across the continent. This is one of the reasons why smaller countries generally receive extra help - by bringing those economies up to speed it increases the demand there for products from the larger countries, which has been part of what has stimulated the European economies so successfully over this period.

 

Unfortunately this referendum has brought out an awful lot of rubbish and misinformation on both sides. It does not surprise me that you are confused if this is the first time thta you have looked into things.

[Vampyr]

Talking about the decline and disintegration of the EU, this is an interesting report :

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

Scroll down to the second and third images.

Not surprisingly the Poles favour the EU, but I am surprised they found sufficient numbers remaining there to conduct a poll. Nevertheless, you can see the increasing general feeling in the EU that it is going to the dogs.

 

I think that the first image is interesting too. Most Europeans are savvy enough to know that losing the EU's second-largest net contributor would be bad for them.

 

Also I think that the loss of Schengen is huge and there will be big changes in the EU with or without Brexit.