EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[najaB]

I'd suggest it's because the economies of say, Germany and Ireland have nothing in common, never have had, and the EU opportunistically offers them financial salvation.

Interestingly, Ireland has a youth unemployment rate (which is the point you were making) that is lower than the EU average.

 

[meridian2]

Interestingly, Ireland has a youth unemployment rate (which is the point you were making) that is lower than the EU average.

It wasn't the point I was making, and anyway Ireland has long exported its youth. I was referring to the loans of German banks that lead to a housing bubble and subsequent crash.

 

[EM2]

Not looking at the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. It's a rhetorical tactic to stave off the inevitable.

It really isn't. If the evidence exists, then I would like to look at it.

 

[meridian2]

It really isn't. If the evidence exists, then I would like to look at it.

That requires an open mind.

 

[me123]

That requires an open mind.

Yes it does. And our open minds would like to see the evidence, please.

This is not a "rhetorical tactic to stave off the inevitable". We'd simply like to see the evidence that something is true, so that we can appraise it. This contributes to discussion and debate.

 

[najaB]

It wasn't the point I was making, and anyway Ireland has long exported its youth. I was referring to the loans of German banks that lead to a housing bubble and subsequent crash.

Sorry, it wasn't clear. You made a point about youth unemployment to which I replied and you replied about a different topic.

I wasn't aware that the German banks forced Irish customers, against their will, to take loans that they didn't want.

 

[Barn]

• For decisions in local areas, the parish council is appropriate - should we resurface the village carpark for example.
• For sub-regional areas, the county council does well - bus route subsidies for example.
• For regional areas, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have regional parliaments. Areas of England don't, which is a shame. Deciding on bypasses for example.
• For national areas, that's what we have Westminster for, they can make big decisions on major things like motorways
• For micro-global areas, we have regional groups to decide on things. Fishing the in the North Sea for example
• For global areas, we get a say in the UN, climate change, use of resources in space, etc

This makes sense only if each tier sticks faithfully to areas which are appropriate to that tier, and does not have expansionist tendencies.

The EU is supposed to do this - there is a principle called 'subsidiarity' which means that the EU should only legislate in an area if it cannot be better dealt with at lower tiers. But in my view this important test has become far too much of a tick box exercise. If you read the subsidiarity reports for proposed legislative measures, they really do give the impression that someone has been given the task of working out how to put something persuasive in the subsidiarity box, rather than genuinely given the task of working out whether the subsidiarity principle really is met.

This is in some ways a natural consequence: which mid-ranking Commission policy officer with a good salary and a great pension will ever say "Actually, I don't think anything needs to be done at EU level in my policy area this year. Why don't we just let things bed down for a while and see how we get on in a few years' time?".

I think the categorisation is also much more subjective and is based on a number of factors. I don't think that it is improper for a population to want to bring something down a tier to increase proximity of decision-making even if it decreases overall effectiveness on a macro scale.

 

[EM2]

That requires an open mind.

Indeed it does, something that I'd like to think I possess. Because I've not been able to find any evidence of the move towards a federalised EU, I've had to make decisions based on what information I could find.

 

[meridian2]

Yes it does. And our open minds would like to see the evidence, please.

This is not a "rhetorical tactic to stave off the inevitable". We'd simply like to see the evidence that something is true, so that we can appraise it. This contributes to discussion and debate.

I quoted the president of the European commission directly, and it was rejected as unpalatable. Dismissing evidence that doesn't fit ones predisposition is generally called prejudice. The EU is as the EU does, and presently what it does is expand into areas previously seen as the preserve of national government. There's even talk of an EU standing army. Are we to believe it's all agitprop from the EU's detractors, or is some of it simply the public voicing of things long said in camera? Can you imagine a vehemently anti-EU candidate elevated to the highest office in the commission? I think it would be technically impossible, therefore the default position is business as usual.

 

[miami]

Can you imagine a vehemently anti-EU candidate elevated to the highest office in the commission? I think it would be technically impossible, therefore the default position is business as usual.

Yes, if a UKIP government were returned to the UK, then the PM would appoint an anti-EU as the UK nominated EU commissioner.

If a euroskeptic grouping of parties managed to get 51% of the votes in the EU parliament, then a euroskeptic president would be put in place.

What Europe does not allow is a party or grouping that got 37% of the votes of the electorate to gain 100% of the power. I trust you agree that would be anti-democratic?

 

[najaB]

I quoted the president of the European commission directly, and it was rejected as unpalatable.

The key thing about that quote:

The commission president's argument is that as the eurozone adopts federalist structures on fiscal and economic policy, supported by Britain as necessary for financial stability, there will also be a need for political structures that will fundamentally change the way the EU works.
"Further economic integration would transcend the limits of the intergovernmental method of running the EU and the eurozone in particular

Is that Barroso is speaking about the impact of events that haven't yet happened, and about the Eurozone. So it has no relevance to UK sovereignty. And there's a vast difference between 'federalist structures on fiscal and economic policy' and a federal government.

 

[miami]

While looking up Juncker's views on federal europe I came across this gem:

“We cannot subscribe to the process that brought Mr Juncker to this point. We believe it represents a shift of power away from the Member States and towards the parliament, and that there is a false linkage between people voting primarily for national parties, and the candidates that pan-European parties put forward for the commission presidency” – Syad Kamall.

Kamall at the time was Leader of the Conservative Party in the European Parliament, he is against a move towards more democracy in europe (by allowing the representitives of the people more power, rather than representitives of national governments). He's more in favour of power resting with people who are indirectly voted for. It isn't hard to think of a few European governments that were "indirectly voted for" in the C20th, and what the outcome was.

 

[meridian2]

And there's a vast difference between 'federalist structures on fiscal and economic policy' and a federal government.

That remains to be seen.

 

[meridian2]

Yes, if a UKIP government were returned to the UK, then the PM would appoint an anti-EU as the UK nominated EU commissioner.

Or offer a referendum on leaving the EU. Which one is more likely?

 

[najaB]

That remains to be seen.

It might be a step towards a federal government but it's only a small step. The basic functions of government include:

• Preserving order
• Defending against external enemies
• Managing economic conditions
• Redistribution of income and resources
• Providing collective goods
• Preventing externalities

The EU, even in a federalist Eurozone, would directly control the ones in red since the economic policy would be commonly agreed, and have influence over the ones in blue by setting standards that the member states would either meet or agree formal opt-outs and providing funding for public projects which are chosen by national governments. 'Preserving order' is an interesting one as the rise of terrorism has lead for calls for more direct cooperation between law-enforcement authorities though I understand it still isn't happening.

 

[EM2]

I quoted the president of the European commission directly, and it was rejected as unpalatable. Dismissing evidence that doesn't fit ones predisposition is generally called prejudice.

Not unpalatable, but simply one person's opinion. I'd take more notice of something like the White Paper that was mentioned earlier, because it has more detail and at least some outlines of what future direction the EU might take.

The EU is as the EU does, and presently what it does is expand into areas previously seen as the preserve of national government. There's even talk of an EU standing army.

Again, there is no evidence for this ever becoming a reality, and it has already been debated a number of times in this thread.

Are we to believe it's all agitprop from the EU's detractors, or is some of it simply the public voicing of things long said in camera? Can you imagine a vehemently anti-EU candidate elevated to the highest office in the commission? I think it would be technically impossible, therefore the default position is business as usual.

Not technically impossible, just very, very, very unlikely.

 

[najaB]

Again, there is no evidence for this ever becoming a reality, and it has already been debated a number of times in this thread.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far. The sensationalist 'Euro army' that features in the tabloid headlines most certainly will never happen, but there is the Eurocorps which is a permanent military corps of HQ staff to which national army troops can be assigned on a case-by-case basis - primarily for peace-keeping operations.

So there is a standing European army but they aren't a fighting force by any description.

 

[Barn]

Kamall at the time was Leader of the Conservative Party in the European Parliament, he is against a move towards more democracy in europe (by allowing the representitives of the people more power, rather than representitives of national governments).

Only if you take the simplistic view that democracy is merely about voting mechanisms.

Democracy is about submitting to the collective view of your fellow citizens.

A huge part of whether something feels (or is) democratic or not is whether or not you are happy to share sovereignty with the other people voting or not.

Taken to the extreme, if the EU's border grew to encompass North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East, would the result of a vote on women's rights or religious freedom or the death penalty feel democratic to you simply because the majority of the total population voted the other way to you?

Probably not, I'd wager, and the reason why is that you would not be comfortable sharing those decisions with that population. It doesn't matter if the vote itself was direct, free and fair.

That's a deliberately extreme example, but the British people have decided that they are not happy sharing sovereignty with our European neighbours on the more mundane (but nonetheless important) matters that work through the EU parliament. The concept is the same.

 

[najaB]

That's a deliberately extreme example, but the British people have decided that they are not happy sharing sovereignty with our European neighbours on the more mundane (but nonetheless important) matters that work through the EU parliament. The concept is the same.

I wish I shared your confidence that that was what the British people were voting for. Many of them were, I suspect, voting for such illusory benefits as £350M a week for the NHS.

 

[meridian2]

Not unpalatable, but simply one person's opinion.

True, and the person happened to be president of the EU commission, not a bloke in a Brussels high street.

 

[najaB]

True, and the person happened to be president of the EU commission, not a bloke in a Brussels high street.

He's still only one person.

 

[EM2]

True, and the person happened to be president of the EU commission, not a bloke in a Brussels high street.

But not able to make that decision on his own, as has been stated numerous times already.

 

[miami]

True, and the person happened to be president of the EU commission, not a bloke in a Brussels high street.

For now. In 2019 he'll be yesterday's news, and his opinions will matter about as much as Tony Blair's.

 

[Barn]

I wish I shared your confidence that that was what the British people were voting for. Many of them were, I suspect, voting for such illusory benefits as £350M a week for the NHS.

Let's be honest about this: the British people are comprised of a wide variety of characters. There is a wide diversity of views, of ways of thinking, of interest in politics and current affairs and, being completely frank for a moment, a wide spectrum of IQ.

I'm sure that there are some people who thought about the £350m on the bus, and I'm sure there are some people who believed the £4,000 "hit" per family. However, I find it difficult to believe that there could have been many people who would have seen the bus or the more exotic of Osborne's pronouncements but not have seen the instant and repeated reaction from the respective other side saying that each of those things were nonsense.

I'm not for a minute saying that every voter, or indeed the majority of voters, went through what you or I would consider a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis exercise. I think that is true of both sides.

It is more likely that many voters made the decision on gut feel. Many Leave voters I know felt that they didn't trust the direction that they felt the EU was moving in, even if they couldn't point to many specific faults affecting their lives. Many Remain voters I know felt that supporting the EU was more in line with their liberal, globalistic viewpoint, even if they could point to flaws that bothered them about the EU.

Whilst I think that both sides made use of gut feel, there is a difference in how that has been interpreted since the referendum. Remainers made a principally economic argument which, although not really a science, at least uses a language of numbers and figures. Gut feel seems wrong as a response to economics, and experts seem appropriate.

Leavers made a great deal of sovereignty and control. Gut feel seems much more appropriate in this area, and experts seem patronising.

 

[meridian2]

He's still only one person.

That's one of the least defensible comebacks I've ever heard in a public discussion.

 

[meridian2]

But not able to make that decision on his own, as has been stated numerous times already.

But in a highly important and persuasive position which more than likely represents that of other commissioners, or he wouldn't have felt able to speak out publicly.

Fortunately Britain has put the labyrinth of EU opinion behind it pending another referendum.

 

[EM2]

But in a highly important and persuasive position which more than likely represents that of other commissioners, or he wouldn't have felt able to speak out publicly.

You do realise that Barroso isn't actually the President of the European Commission any more, don't you?

 

[meridian2]

You do realise that Barroso isn't actually the President of the European Commission any more, don't you?

You do realise it doesn't matter either way now, don't you? The time to fight the referendum was in the run up to it, not retrospectively.

 

[miami]

Taken to the extreme, if the EU's border grew to encompass North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East, would the result of a vote on women's rights or religious freedom or the death penalty feel democratic to you simply because the majority of the total population voted the other way to you?

That's not in the remit of a supra-national grouping like the EU. What is in the remit is the way we interact with

However culturally I have far more in common with software engineers in Berlin or Lisbon than I do with UKIP members. I suspect such UKIPers have more in common with Marine Le Pen than they do with me.

Probably not, I'd wager, and the reason why is that you would not be comfortable sharing those decisions with that population. It doesn't matter if the vote itself was direct, free and fair.

The EU doesn't comprise those countries. I have no problem with the population of the countries the EU is in, or any country likely to join.

That's a deliberately extreme example, but the British people have decided that they are not happy sharing sovereignty with our European neighbours on the more mundane (but nonetheless important) matters that work through the EU parliament. The concept is the same.

Parliament has always remained Sovereign - see the government whitepaper.

 

[Barn]

The EU doesn't comprise those countries. I have no problem with the population of the countries the EU is in, or any country likely to join.

I know you don't: you're a Remainer. No Remainer could logically have any concern with being linked into a single demos with other EU countries.

I'm pleased that you have confirmed the point that you're happy because you feel close enough to the particular countries that we currently share the EU with. The point is that democracy isn't just about voting systems, it is about feeling such an intense level of common purpose with your fellow electors that you are happy to share a democratic outcome with them. If it comes to it, you are happy to be outvoted by them.

The British public have decided that they do not feel sufficiently close to other EU electors to share this sovereignty with them. This doesn't mean that we do not consider them our friends. It is a particularly strong level of affinity that is required to share a demos, which is demonstrated by how close Scotland came to leaving us - a nation with whom we have a much greater shared history and culture than any other European country.

Parliament has always remained Sovereign - see the government whitepaper.

I'm afraid this is a bit of a facile argument. It has always remained "sovereign" because it always had the reserve power to make us quit the EU (either by providing for an exit directly or making it inevitable by disobeying EU law).

The presence of this reserve power cannot be used as an argument to support Parliament's sovereignty within the EU, because the exercise of the reserve power is incompatible with continued EU membership. Parliament has not been actively sovereign since 1972.