|
|
Post by potteringermany on Nov 24, 2018 14:23:53 GMT
The EU is far more democratic than our political system. We will be less sovereign when we leave if we want to continue trading with the EU. Why should we not want to keep trading? If there is no agreement we simply trade under WTO rules. That could result in much cheaper food from the rest of the world, which the EU taxes heavily. Why would the EU not want to trade with us? They have a massive trade surplus with us. If we start taxing each other they could lose out massively, particularly Germany. I agree our constitution, voting system, etc. is a poor model for democracy but to suggest Germany, France, Italy are more democratic is nonsense with all the wheeling and dealing between parties to form a government. They make the Tory Ulster unionist deal look small fry. We get the government the largest minority voted for, those countries get an alliance government nobody voted for. Hi Mr Coke, I know about the German system and it is far more democratic than the British system. At the Commons level, the split of MPs directly represents the proportion of people who votes for those parties. So when there is a coallition it still directly represents the number of people who voted for them.Also, the Upper House is directly elected by the people. (Of course it has to be said, that we Brits set up the system after the war.
In the UK, you could, for example have Conservatives winning 325 of the seats with say 12m votes, with Lib Dem finishing just behind them in every constituency with 11m and Labour getting no votes, and then Labour winning 325 seat with 12m votes, Lib Dems finishing just behind them in every constituency with 11m and Conservatives getting no votes. That would mean thatalthough Lib Dems got nearly twice as many votes as either Labour or Conservative they would't have one seat! How can that be a fair system?
But I think Oggy was refering to the EU having a more democratic system than the UK rather than the individual european countries
|
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Nov 24, 2018 14:43:13 GMT
You do realise you've just listed a bunch of bad things which have happened to this country whilst we've been a member of the European Union, right? You sound as hot on the ball as our "I'm so proud of my European identity that I've fucked off to live in the United States of America" friend from higher up the page. I'm a dual national mate. I'm just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Nov 24, 2018 14:51:50 GMT
Whatever your argument is for leaving you took something away from me, my European citizenship and Identity that I've had since I was 8. Myself and many other ex-pat's weren't even permitted to vote despite living full time in the UK for 23 years. No surprise people are resentful towards those who voted to leave, it feels like I've been mugged by a band of Little Britainites. Trump is bad enough here but at least we get the chance to vote him out in 2 years. You are sad person if you feel resentful to those who voted differently to you and were in the majority. I voted to leave and and am not a little Britonite. I think leaving will create a huge opportunity for the UK to grow more rapidly in the world markets and not be ties to a stagnant Europe. So you vote in America,where you chose to live (and lost it sounds), and you want to vote in the UK as well! I'm sure Mr Trump would love you. The cut off to vote was >15 years non UK resident.Apparently your knowledge of who voted is as sound as your Economic forecasting. |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 24, 2018 15:52:48 GMT
Whatever your argument is for leaving you took something away from me, my European citizenship and Identity that I've had since I was 8. Myself and many other ex-pat's weren't even permitted to vote despite living full time in the UK for 23 years. No surprise people are resentful towards those who voted to leave, it feels like I've been mugged by a band of Little Britainites. Trump is bad enough here but at least we get the chance to vote him out in 2 years. There is so many things wrong with this post I just laughed heartily Hats off to those who bothered to explain anything to you 'neworleans' |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 24, 2018 15:55:58 GMT
I have issue with people saying that the EU have a say in our affairs. I just don’t get it. Weren’t we free to make deals with the rest of the world while we were in the EU? What are these EU laws we had to abide by ? Fishing laws, the human rights act? What sovereignty are we taking back? That doesn’t rule UK affairs at all as far as I can see. I remember the UK being “the sick man of Europe”, throughout the 80s when Thatcher was in charge. We had unprecedented growth from 92 ( when the Maastricht Treaty was signed) up until 2008. (The crash) Weren’t we the fastest growing economy in the G7 after that point, and then became the bottom of that group after Brexit? Cold hard facts . Bored of hyper links showing some car company is making their new viper 2000 car in the UK. All I see is the figures. I also see the Police stations closing, violent crime on the up, the NHS struggling, strikes, and shit load more homeless people on the streets. I can see those things with my own eyes! I’m appalled. And for those people defending this, shame on you. Great Post. I assume you voted remain? I'll just take a leaf out of oggys book here - obviously you didn't know what you were voting for. Shame on you |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 24, 2018 16:02:30 GMT
The EU and our relationship to it, is not primarily about governing the Uk, certainly not for me. Then, with respect, you're wrong |
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 24, 2018 16:04:40 GMT
"as half our exports go to the EU" Currently stands at 44% and shrinking, it was 55% in 2006. So with that in mind why would we wish to continue selling to the EU and not strike new FTA with the rest of the globe. New deals that would not alienate emerging markets through tariffs imposed by the protectionism of the CU ? We already have those trade deals with a third of the world. Soon we will have trade deals with none of the world. Just for a laugh that one oggy? Or have you started believing your own shit? None of the world. Ooo me ribs |
|
|
|
Post by neworleanstokie on Nov 24, 2018 16:38:11 GMT
Whatever your argument is for leaving you took something away from me, my European citizenship and Identity that I've had since I was 8. Myself and many other ex-pat's weren't even permitted to vote despite living full time in the UK for 23 years. No surprise people are resentful towards those who voted to leave, it feels like I've been mugged by a band of Little Britainites. Trump is bad enough here but at least we get the chance to vote him out in 2 years. There is so many things wrong with this post I just laughed heartily Hats off to those who bothered to explain anything to you 'neworleans' it's just an opinion "sorethumbs", everyone is entitled to one and I don't need anyone to explain to me how I feel. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 24, 2018 16:59:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Nov 24, 2018 17:06:09 GMT
You have to hand it to the French they sure put a lot of fight into protesting. If only they’d shown as much fight in defending their country from invasion. Maybe that’s why Macron wants this EU army so they won’t get invaded by the Germans. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 24, 2018 17:21:03 GMT
The letter is worth a read...." A coat of arms of a cock and a chicken"
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 24, 2018 17:24:19 GMT
Thanks John. Still not sure whether Labour could Nationalise Industries whilst still in the EU though. It's a subject I've not heard debated..although I would argue is extremely significant. I'm not either Wizard. There is an argument that some of the European Railways are state owned, but I think that is a case of " ways to get round it" But because to be in the single market requires a level playing field as I understand it we could not subsidise for example a car industry. But then again there are ways round that/ other ways to subsidise. My argument is that the decision making should take place as close to the people as possible....and certainly not ' a one fits all' directive from Brussels.,..does/ can such a system take into account what is best for Greece/ UK Poland and Romania.. or best for the EU..... also their top down system relies on everyone abiding by the rules... which is another issue. Ah the European railways. Is this an example of what's meant by a "Two speed Europe" ? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 24, 2018 17:26:01 GMT
Thanks John. Still not sure whether Labour could Nationalise Industries whilst still in the EU though. It's a subject I've not heard debated..although I would argue is extremely significant. EU rules generally forbid the creation of a state monopoly. In the case of the railways for example they are under the jurisdiction of the Fourth railway package of 2016. The 4th Railway Package is a set of 6 legislative texts designed to complete the single market for Rail services (Single European Railway Area). It covers what it calls the technical pillar and the market pillar. The technical bit covers health and safety and the technical side of a pan European operation of a single railway. The marketing bit is: "The market pillar will complete the process of gradual market opening started with the 1st railway package. It establishes the general right for railway undertakings established in one Member State to operate all types of passenger services everywhere in the EU, lays down rules aimed at improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure and preventing discrimination and introduces the principle of mandatory tendering for public service contracts in rail" In other words it allows, via HS2, a high speed rail link from any EU state to northern England and vice versa. Anyway, as far as the railways go as long as part of it stays in the free market (operators) the rail infrastructure can be taken into public ownership. Full nationalisation is prohibited. The same applies to any other industry, eg you could nationalise the oil refineries as long as petrol stations were in a free market. Just my take on it, I'm sure Oggy could provide a deep legal analysis if required, after all he's a lawyer that voted for it. Is this real Clayton or are you quoting from Yes Minister?  |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Nov 24, 2018 17:33:36 GMT
You have to hand it to the French they sure put a lot of fight into protesting. If only they’d shown as much fight in defending their country from invasion. Maybe that’s why Macron wants this EU army so they won’t get invaded by the Germans.Well, that sort of is the point for them isn't it. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 24, 2018 17:37:54 GMT
EU rules generally forbid the creation of a state monopoly. In the case of the railways for example they are under the jurisdiction of the Fourth railway package of 2016. The 4th Railway Package is a set of 6 legislative texts designed to complete the single market for Rail services (Single European Railway Area). It covers what it calls the technical pillar and the market pillar. The technical bit covers health and safety and the technical side of a pan European operation of a single railway. The marketing bit is: "The market pillar will complete the process of gradual market opening started with the 1st railway package. It establishes the general right for railway undertakings established in one Member State to operate all types of passenger services everywhere in the EU, lays down rules aimed at improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure and preventing discrimination and introduces the principle of mandatory tendering for public service contracts in rail" In other words it allows, via HS2, a high speed rail link from any EU state to northern England and vice versa. Anyway, as far as the railways go as long as part of it stays in the free market (operators) the rail infrastructure can be taken into public ownership. Full nationalisation is prohibited. The same applies to any other industry, eg you could nationalise the oil refineries as long as petrol stations were in a free market. Just my take on it, I'm sure Oggy could provide a deep legal analysis if required, after all he's a lawyer that voted for it. Is this real Clayton or are you quoting from Yes Minister?  It's real mate. I got it from the Department of Administrative Affairs, so it must be right. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 24, 2018 17:40:18 GMT
You have to hand it to the French they sure put a lot of fight into protesting. If only they’d shown as much fight in defending their country from invasion. Maybe that’s why Macron wants this EU army so they won’t get invaded by the Germans. Surely the Americans? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 18:36:09 GMT
No but I can we have a house of parliament that is made up of Lords (not voted for) and house of commons (voted for on a first past the post system. In Europe they have MEP's voted for using a proportional representation system from all people in Europe from member states these form blocks in the European parliament aligned to there political beliefs. They have a council of ministers that are elected by each European government (which are voted for in each countries election) so again democratic. And before you say it a European president who is voted for by all elected members from all countries. so a system that is more democratic than the uk The members of the HoL are chosen by elected politicians. Your list is exactly why I voted to Leave. The EU is superfluous. Why do remainers think that the UK Parliament, HoL, Supreme Court and BoE aren't enough to Govern the UK? They are and they do right now |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 18:39:51 GMT
We already have those trade deals with a third of the world. Soon we will have trade deals with none of the world. Just for a laugh that one oggy? Or have you started believing your own shit? None of the world. Ooo me ribs So if there is no deal, please name the countries we will have a trade deal with on 30 march 2019. In the event of a deal, at the end of the transition period, please name the countries we will have a trade deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by ravey123 on Nov 24, 2018 18:47:33 GMT
So she's already caved in on one point - Gibraltar. Next to cave in on fishing rights.
This deal is going to be worse than what we had before - what happened to Brexit means Brexit
I'm beyond pissed with this excuse of a politician. She is starting to run a close second to Bliar for selling this country down the Swanny
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 24, 2018 19:23:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Nov 24, 2018 21:04:32 GMT
Just for a laugh that one oggy? Or have you started believing your own shit? None of the world. Ooo me ribs So if there is no deal, please name the countries we will have a trade deal with on 30 march 2019. In the event of a deal, at the end of the transition period, please name the countries we will have a trade deal with. Are you suggesting we will have zero deals with anyone else in the rest of the world? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 21:26:15 GMT
So if there is no deal, please name the countries we will have a trade deal with on 30 march 2019. In the event of a deal, at the end of the transition period, please name the countries we will have a trade deal with. Are you suggesting we will have zero deals with anyone else in the rest of the world? I’m asking you to name the countries we will have trade deals with in the circumstances listed. As a member of the EU, we cannot negotiate our own trade deals. All trade deals we currently benefit from are due to our membership of the EU so when we leave the EU those trade deals end too. If I am wrong, please name the countries we will have trade deals with immediately once we leave. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 21:32:23 GMT
Is this real Clayton or are you quoting from Yes Minister? It's real mate. I got it from the Department of Administrative Affairs, so it must be right. EU member states can nationalise things. Like we have parts of the banks after the financial crisis and the east coast mainline more recently. There are rules on the process though and private companies can bid for the contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 24, 2018 21:48:17 GMT
The members of the HoL are chosen by elected politicians. Your list is exactly why I voted to Leave. The EU is superfluous. Why do remainers think that the UK Parliament, HoL, Supreme Court and BoE aren't enough to Govern the UK? They are and they do right now They implement instructions from Brussels. "A "regulation" is a binding legislative act. It must be applied in its entirety across the EU." "A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve." europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en |
|
|
|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Nov 24, 2018 22:01:04 GMT
They are and they do right now They implement instructions from Brussels. "A "regulation" is a binding legislative act. It must be applied in its entirety across the EU." "A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve." europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_enThey implement instructions from Brussels that they’ve had a big hand in setting, that all countries in the EU have a chance to veto. May’s deal removes us from having our big say in creating the legislative acts, the chance to veto them and just has us following them. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 22:21:55 GMT
They are and they do right now They implement instructions from Brussels. "A "regulation" is a binding legislative act. It must be applied in its entirety across the EU." "A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve." europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_enYep, lots of other international treaties govern how we operate in this globalised world. Surely you cannot be hypocritical enough to want to leave the EU for sovereignty reasons but would be willing, for example, for us to trade under WTO rules with another nation? We haven’t singlehandly set the WTO rules so surely you must be against that and every other international law and treaty we are bound by. Or are you a hypocrite? |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 24, 2018 22:39:19 GMT
It's real mate. I got it from the Department of Administrative Affairs, so it must be right. EU member states can nationalise things. Like we have parts of the banks after the financial crisis and the east coast mainline more recently. There are rules on the process though and private companies can bid for the contracts. Thank you for confirming what I wrote above. Parts of an industry may be taken in to public ownership. BUT only in as far as it complies with Article 107(I) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which states: 1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.It is the protection of fair competition within the single market that is the test of whether an industry that is taken into public ownership is allowable. So it is allowable to take parts of banks into public ownership, but to take the whole of the banking industry is prima facie anti free European competition. Which is why when the Belgium government overstepped the mark in publicly funding the Duferco steel group the EU order recovery of €211m. It was effectively nationalising the Belgium steel industry. What I will accept is the level of state support would have to be tested on a case by case basis against A107(1) TFEU |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 22:47:14 GMT
EU member states can nationalise things. Like we have parts of the banks after the financial crisis and the east coast mainline more recently. There are rules on the process though and private companies can bid for the contracts. Thank you for confirming what I wrote above. Parts of an industry may be taken in to public ownership. BUT only in as far as it complies with Article 107(I) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which states: 1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.It is the protection of fair competition within the single market that is the test of whether an industry that is taken into public ownership is allowable. So it is allowable to take parts of banks into public ownership, but to take the whole of the banking industry is prima facie anti free European competition. Which is why when the Belgium government overstepped the mark in publicly funding the Duferco steel group the EU order recovery of €211m. It was effectively nationalising the Belgium steel industry. What I will accept is the level of state support would have to be tested on a case by case basis against A107(1) TFEU Yep, but it would be incredibly unlikely for an entire industry to be nationalised. It is always only going to be done in part. Particularly in the UK where we have sold off all government assets and bringing them back under government control would cost an absolute fortune. Even in many EU nations where far more is government owned entire industries tend not to be. That doesn’t stop the vast majorities of, for example, the French and German railways being government owned. Or energy etc. It doesn’t stop the health service or schools being government owned here for example. Private companies have to be allowed to compete. Who cares anyway, we won’t be bound by that in future. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 24, 2018 22:53:32 GMT
Thank you for confirming what I wrote above. Parts of an industry may be taken in to public ownership. BUT only in as far as it complies with Article 107(I) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which states: 1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.It is the protection of fair competition within the single market that is the test of whether an industry that is taken into public ownership is allowable. So it is allowable to take parts of banks into public ownership, but to take the whole of the banking industry is prima facie anti free European competition. Which is why when the Belgium government overstepped the mark in publicly funding the Duferco steel group the EU order recovery of €211m. It was effectively nationalising the Belgium steel industry. What I will accept is the level of state support would have to be tested on a case by case basis against A107(1) TFEU Yep, but it would be incredibly unlikely for an entire industry to be nationalised. It is always only going to be done in part. Particularly in the UK where we have sold off all government assets and bringing them back under government control would cost an absolute fortune. Even in many EU nations where far more is government owned entire industries tend not to be. That doesn’t stop the vast majorities of, for example, the French and German railways being government owned. Or energy etc. It doesn’t stop the health service or schools being government owned here for example. Private companies have to be allowed to compete. Who cares anyway, we won’t be bound by that in future.
Hold the line Oggy!! |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 24, 2018 22:57:03 GMT
Yep, but it would be incredibly unlikely for an entire industry to be nationalised. It is always only going to be done in part. Particularly in the UK where we have sold off all government assets and bringing them back under government control would cost an absolute fortune. Even in many EU nations where far more is government owned entire industries tend not to be. That doesn’t stop the vast majorities of, for example, the French and German railways being government owned. Or energy etc. It doesn’t stop the health service or schools being government owned here for example. Private companies have to be allowed to compete. Who cares anyway, we won’t be bound by that in future.
Hold the line Oggy!! If Corbyn gets in power his policies will need to be diluted. |
|
