Who next - new President of the European Commission?

[melthebell 863]

17 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I'm no fan of Car Boot, but to say, as you seem to, that we needed the EU to provide the legislation is disingenuous - an 'out of the EU' UK could just as easily have implemented it.

But the point is our government could've but didn't, the Tories are everything carboot is railing against. It is the eu that has put in regulations to keep their excesses in check

[RollingJ 2,042]

7 minutes ago, melthebell said:

But the point is our government could've but didn't, the Tories are everything carboot is railing against. It is the eu that has put in regulations to keep their excesses in check

But would they? - you and I don't know that.

[L00b 441]

36 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I'm no fan of Car Boot, but to say, as you seem to, that we needed the EU to provide the legislation is disingenuous - an 'out of the EU' UK could just as easily have implemented it.

I can't see where ez8004 claimed that the UK 'needed' the EU to curb the excesses of ZHCs.

 

The fact of the matter is, the UK government saw the ZHCs come in and did nothing about curbing their more exploitative aspects.

 

The EU did, not so much out of 'socialistic tendencies' as many hard right ultra-capitalists would have you believe, but towards maintaining a level market-playing field across member states (-which is its main purpose, remit, and field of legislation).

 

Many of the loudest voices pushing for an 'out of the EU' UK, such as Rees-Mogg, Bannon & co. are long on record with wanting to bin all these legislative checks and balances (regardless of whether they came at the UK or EU initiative), to make the UK more competitive. That's exactly what 'Singapore on Thames' is all about. But the logical and obvious flipside they don't talk about, is the consequences on employment security and household income security for UK workers.

Edited June 25, 2019 by L00b

[RollingJ 2,042]

@L00b I appreciate that you see the EU as a perfect way of running the world (or part of it, at least), but as one who voted against the original decision to join the - then - EEC, I'm still not convinced it was, or is, a good idea.

I'm as entitled to that view as you are to yours, btw.

[Voice of reason 0]

21 minutes ago, melthebell said:

But the point is our government could've but didn't, the Tories are everything carboot is railing against. It is the eu that has put in regulations to keep their excesses in check

Is the fact that the eu 'keeps a national government in check' part of the whole issue???

I don't like lots of things the tories do , and probably wouldn't like lots of things that Labour would do. BUT whoever it is, is the democratically elected government of this country. Being restricted by someone else isn't acceptable imo. What if a future far-right eu starts keeping legislation protecting minorities 'in check' ?

[L00b 441]

5 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

@L00b I appreciate that you see the EU as a perfect way of running the world (or part of it, at least), but as one who voted against the original decision to join the - then - EEC, I'm still not convinced it was, or is, a good idea.

I'm as entitled to that view as you are to yours, btw.

I see the EU for what it is : an experiment in progress.

 

That is very far indeed from 'a perfect way of running the world (or parts thereof)'.

 

But as experiments go, when I look back at life in and across the EU for the past 4+ decades, relative to life elsewhere on our planet, it's fairly successful so far. Plenty of tuning and improvements to bring, sure. But on balance, pretty good: member states don't get pushed around by the US, Russia (and now China) like they used to be for some decades after WW2, relationships are of equals between economic superpowers.

 

I haven't disputed your entitlement to your opinion, by the way.  In the least. I've commented about your post.

[GivenToFly 0]

Europe needs to pool together, it contains 500 million people, a higher percentage of which are more intelligent, even basically literate than the percentage of people in the US, China and India. Europe could militarise (in geo-political terms this is still all that really matters) and surpass even the US as the foremost military and economic power of the world fairly quickly if it chose to do so. Britain needs to be a part of this.

[Voice of reason 0]

This situation sounds very much to me like 'we don't like what our government is doing, we'll get another one to overrule it' . That is part of the whole issue.

 

If the current government is doing something that is against the wishes of the electorate, they'll be out at the the next GE. If it is in line with what the electorate want, they'll probably stay in power.

 

So, if you don't like what the government is doing, get them out, don't expect somebody else to implement it for you.

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

This situation sounds very much to me like 'we don't like what our government is doing, we'll get another one to overrule it' . That is part of the whole issue.

 

If the current government is doing something that is against the wishes of the electorate, they'll be out at the the next GE. If it is in line with what the electorate want, they'll probably stay in power.

 

So, if you don't like what the government is doing, get them out, don't expect somebody else to implement it for you.

Eminently sensible and democratic.

 

But if the next GE occurs after Brexit, by then it would be too late for the majority of the electorate not liking what they've done and voting them out, to 'undo' it: from Brexit day+1, deal or no deal, the UK could only ever be in accession talks under Art.49 TEU.

 

In these post-Lisbon Treaty days, that's with  compulsory Schengen signing and € adopting (for England, can't see that happening in our lifetimes). 

 

The next PM has that outcome (and the corresponding transfer of further power to the EU in post-Brexit horse trading) to weigh up, in case there's no extension nor a timely withdrawal of Art.50 TEU. 

 

Likewise the next EU Commission President, because that's going to be their first and main job.

Edited June 25, 2019 by L00b

[Vaati 11]

Post(s) have been removed because they could be considered to breach our Terms of Service or Forum Rules.  Any further personal attacks will result in you being suspended.

[melthebell 863]

2 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

This situation sounds very much to me like 'we don't like what our government is doing, we'll get another one to overrule it' . That is part of the whole issue.

 

If the current government is doing something that is against the wishes of the electorate, they'll be out at the the next GE. If it is in line with what the electorate want, they'll probably stay in power.

 

So, if you don't like what the government is doing, get them out, don't expect somebody else to implement it for you.

But you want us under the thumb  of the WTO instead Oo

exactly the same situation but probably a lot worse, out of the frying pan comes to mind

Edited June 25, 2019 by melthebell

[Voice of reason 0]

30 minutes ago, melthebell said:

But you want us under the thumb  of the WTO instead Oo

exactly the same situation but probably a lot worse, out of the frying pan comes to mind

completely different organisations. Unless you are going to tell us what wto legislation we implement periodically???

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Eminently sensible and democratic.

 

But if the next GE occurs after Brexit, by then it would be too late for the majority of the electorate not liking what they've done and voting them out, to 'undo' it: from Brexit day+1, deal or no deal, the UK could only ever be in accession talks under Art.49 TEU.

 

In these post-Lisbon Treaty days, that's with  compulsory Schengen signing and € adopting (for England, can't see that happening in our lifetimes). 

 

The next PM has that outcome (and the corresponding transfer of further power to the EU in post-Brexit horse trading) to weigh up, in case there's no extension nor a timely withdrawal of Art.50 TEU. 

 

Likewise the next EU Commission President, because that's going to be their first and main job.

I'm talking about the situation that has been for the last few decades, not what will happen if we left and asked to be re-admitted. Any democracy should expect its own government to implement laws required by its own electorate. Having that overruled by another body (and some people might like that over-ruling) is unnecessary and not what democracy should be about.

I know we elect mep's blah de blah, to which the reply is we only have 10% in-line with our proportion of population etc etc etc.